4 tits Mage io Wire Hi binbeps Se eeel ite sh aeeorueirs sbi gert eae +b ey Pits on gai ye Swed atone sep» See Aveda pede rey Nand dilated teirae, eMail Rab 4 gry reek ro) v7, + eas CRSA ORT fe os ‘4 N04 0s ay gy foghd rete Ct ti tebe phgee: ne her yerey, * aig i figdteredatin, WU FE hey ye) eiehet iv eseyaitgoiiptin ya etoeip Dib eh on b 41 Phe Pastres Ai 9D) oe) iy “pat Mise Weed Meitgs jean ee Waal ED yore ae dri sabe fata ty polars TP AGS tte oe Fe heb Ge, Nant Pst HIPhominied somde $28 epay pp ess Wada jorede Tot 155 maoeer, pir a ategtossce pert er B08 hs isege spas ys NON ashen dy Sverre Ordo Pe oe SF ihe bho ad kiyt ay phe, Pparderalli tite fon oa tale! seas ste 8 Mer shoves Rausaten eleisel Fy et a Wines ian eee Bn eter Ui shy emeneuy ed - r4eebhere. ; 2 . 17966 re vagead +00) ond bog rh ag +) dr Aggy aie, aes a Pt ot) Abana Pe ateteenthy deena, et an Ot ohne 4 tie ~ Mirbou seus aghse dy, +. bidadneeat 9-908 arpeyoreee Pepsi target grat oy Metdedioeieel * eteowegy eon spe BES rt eaty Ou veresact vee J Leet peters) raticere “ee. ioe "iw Hie bar on. ALS “ ST PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. PRINTED BY : SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE — LONDON a ST PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS: WITH A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY BY CHARLES J."-ELLICOTT, Dw: BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 1887. PREFACE. FTER many years, numerous suspensions of the work, and countless interruptions while actually engaged on it, I have at length, by the mercy of God, completed the Commentary which I now bring before the Christian reader. As it is in continuation of Commentaries that have now passed through several editions, it will not be necessary for me to detain the reader by many prefatory comments. Still as more than a generation has passed away since those Commentaries were published, the very lapse of time and the ~ accumulation of fresh materials have imported certain changes into the present work on which it will be necessary for me briefly to speak. The general plan remains precisely thesame. The reader has before him an effort to ascertain, as far as possible, by means of a close and persistent consideration of the gram- matical form and logical connexion of the language of the Original, what the inspired writer exactly desired to convey to the Church of Corinth, and to all readers of this profoundly mteresting Epistle. Where grammatical and logical analysis might seem to prove insufficient, or leave open to us two or more possible interpretations, then, as in the earlier volumes of this series, careful use has been made of the best ancient Versions, and of the writings of the early expositors who used, and who wrote in, the language of the Original. Where further aid has still been required, then the judgment of the best interpreters, of all periods, and especially of later times, vi PREFACE. has been systematically referred to, preference being given to those who, like Calvin, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and others, whether of earlier or more recent times, had more particularly devoted themselves to the interpretation of God’s Holy Word, and had acquired that true exegetical instinct which is more especially developed by practice and experience. Such was the general plan of the earlier Commentaries of this series, and such it remains in the present case. It differs from them perhaps only in this respect, that long ex- perience may have brought with it a better mastery over materials, and may have led the writer of this Commentary respectfully to criticise rather than simply to follow any one of the many eminent expositors who, as it will be seen on every page, have been persistently consulted in the construc- tion of this work. Whatever else this Commentary may be, it certainly expresses a judgment, formed in every case independently on grammatical and contextual considerations, though constantly corrected, supplemented, and enhanced by the labours of eminent and helpful predecessors. Such is the general plan. But it will now be necessary to speak a little in detail, and here, in the very first place, on the Text. The Text has been formed after a wholly independent consideration of the critical material supplied by Tischendorf, and especially by Tregelles,—long experience having led me to fix attention more closely on the selected witnesses that appear in the pages of the latter critic than on the more collective testimonies that are found in the pages of the former. ‘To Tischendorf every New Testament critic owes the deepest debt of gratitude. His last edition is a monu- ment of faithful labour that will be honoured as long as critical studies remain, but it cannot be denied that some of the material, though of indisputable importance in elucidating the evolution of the text, does sometimes confuse the student when desiring to form a sound critical judgment on a de- batable passage. Here, tested witnesses, and mostly early witnesses, are increasingly acknowledged by all unprejudiced minds to occupy and to hold a prerogative place. Such labours as those of my highly-esteemed friends, Professors PREFACE. vil Westcott and Hort, whatever be the judgment we may here and there form on some of their decisions, must be admitted by every fair-judging scholar to have at length placed New Testament criticism on a rational basis, and to have demon- strated to us with singular force and cogency the true critical value of the numerous witnesses that appear before us in the pages of the editions to which I have referred. On these tested witnesses, then, | have, nearly in every case, more especially relied. But I have only now and then enumerated them. It is really very undesirable to bewilder the inexperienced student by long lists of authorities, avow- edly taken bodily from ‘Tregelles or Tischendorf, when really all he wants is an intelligent and impartial judgment formed on them by the expositor whom he is consulting. He is also thankful to know what judgment has been arrived at by the few professed critics that have given us editions of the sacred text. These two most reasonable needs on the part of the student I have endeavoured to meet in the following way. In the first place, I have expressed my judgment on each passage under consideration, using systematically certain forms of expression which appear correctly to represent the actual facts of the case,—and thus. The term ‘ prepondera- ting authority’ has been applied generally to all those cases in which external evidence (in some cases supported also by internal considerations) is in favour of any given reading. That general term which, when used alone, simply implies the dip of the critical balance, is qualified by the following ad- verbs—apparently, slightly, clearly, very clearly, greatly, very greatly, and in a very few instances, vastly,—according to the state of the evidence under consideration. Great care has been taken in each case to choose the adverb consistently, but, in a matter so delicate and difficult as textual criticism, it is excessively hard, even for the same mind, so to weigh external evidence, modified as that evidence often is by in- ternal arguments, as to remain always true to itself. Still it is hoped that the cases of inconsistency will not be found to be more than, in an undertaking so very arduous as that of expressing critical judgments relatively to each other, may charitably be allowed for. The attempt, at any rate, has been viii PREFACE. made for the assistance, as well as for the information, of the general student, and will perhaps not be found wholly useless or unprofitable. In the second place, I have endeavoured to meet the natural desire to know what judgment has been arrived at by the professed critical editors of highest repute on each case under consideration. The decisions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and of Westcott and Hort have consequently been specified in every case. In addition to these, the decision of the Revised Version has also always been specified. Tor though the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers does not claim, and has never claimed, to be, strictly speaking, a critically edited text, it still does represent the collective judgment of twenty or more competent scholars, among whom were critics of high eminence and experience, as well as of different schools of critical thought.’ ~ What has thus been said will sufficiently explain the critical notes. It remains only to be said, that, for con- venience, the third edition of Stephens, as still widely in use, and familiarly known (though not with technical accuracy) as the Received Text, has been regarded throughout as the text which has, so to say, been worked upon in the con- struction of the text which appears in the pages of this volume. The notes under the text thus indicate all de- partures from the text of Stephens, and the general grounds on which they have been made. But besides these critical notes, there will be found, interspersed throughout the Commentary, short notices of further departures from the Received Text which are found in the critical editions cited in these pages, but which do not find a place in the text adopted in this volume. The only further remark that may be necessary relates to the very debatable subject of ortho- graphy. Here I have not been careful to specify every minor ' It is right to say that the plan Weymouth, which was published last here adopted was commenced several year. So far as I have used it I years ago, and long prior to the ap- _ have found it very accurate; but my pearance of the singularly useful, notes were all constructed before, by and carefully prepared, ‘Resultant the kindness of the compiler, this Greek Testament’ of Dr R. F. volume came into my hands. PREFACE. ix difference of spelling between the text adopted and the Received Text. The text adopted presents, on the whole, those forms of spelling which will be not unfamiliar to the student, and for which there is sufficient external authority. In regard of the Commentary only a few remarks seem necessary, as the particulars in which it differs from the former volumes of this series are really very few. In matters of grammatical detail, [ may mention that reference is now made to Dr Moulton’s excellent translation of Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament rather than to editions in the original language, which were used in my former Com- mentaries. Continual reference is also made to the enlarged and now very complete general Greek Grammar of Dr Raphael Kiihner, which had not appeared in its present form when my former Commentaries were written. Nearly all the other grammatical authorities have been long before the world, and will not be unfamiliar to the readers of my former volumes, almost the only new name being that of the small, carefully written, treatise on the principal Greek Particles by Baumlein, a book which I am afraid it is now not very easy to procure. But I need not dwell longer on these particulars, as the pages that follow will speak for themselves. To many those pages may seem too full of technical matter, and too persistent in their grammatical references and details. I will ask, however, all who may take this view kindly to remember that this professes to be, and is, a grammatical commentary, and must be borne with as such. Next I will presume to say this,—that if the student will patiently wade through these details of grammar he wiil be rewarded by a real knowledge of the mind of the Original, which, so far as I know, cannot certainly be acquired any other way. I am well aware that this is a sentiment which may not be quite in harmony with the tone of the hurried days in which we are living, and with the obvious tendency to escape, as far as possible, the trammels of laborious scholarship. Still, I must be permitted to say, it is true. In regard of the ancient Versions and the Greek expo- sitors, it will be seen that the attention paid to them has been increasingly close and systematic. They really form x PREFACE. the backbone of this Commentary. ‘To the Versions I have attended most carefully, and, it may be added, at a very great expenditure of time. Of some there are either no trans- lations, or translations so very untrustworthy that anything like a proper knowledge of these early documents can only be acquired by hard personal work. This has been freely given, for in these Versions we have often the voice and traditional interpretations of ancient Churches, and are learning not merely the mind of the unknown early trans- lator, but, to a large extent, of those among whom he was living, and by whose general persuasions, in regard of many a debatable passage, his own opinions were largely influenced. The only Version which I have comparatively neglected is the Althiopic. It so often degenerates into loose, if not erroneous, paraphrase, that it has seemed excusable to save the time which old experience has taught me this not very inviting language does always most certainly absorb. It has not, however, by any means been left wholly unnoticed. In regard of the extracts made from these Versions, no good end would be obtained by printing the original, even in a trans- literated form. Very few could profit by it. The citations have been given, then, nearly in all cases, in Latin,—-that language admitting of more compression than our own, and being the language in which trustworthy translations of one or two of these Versions have already been made. The Gothic has commonly been printed in the original language, as, in many cases, being intelligible almost to the general reader. The assistance derived from the patristic writers has been, in this Epistle, very great, and, as will be seen, has been very largely and thankfully made use of. Independently of the four regularly used expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Cicnmenius), the citations from several other writers, as given in Cramer’s Catenw, have been found to be of great value. The only difficulty is in the ascription of authorship, comments bearing one name being, from time to time, found really to belong to another. For this, how- ever, these Catene are held responsible, and, in most cases, a brief indication is given of the quotation having been made PREFACE. x1 from them. The Latin Fathers have been much more sparingly used, as their judgment in matters of linguistic detail could never be placed on a level with that of men who spoke the language which they were interpreting. The more recent interpreters, as already has been indicated, are those whom previous experience, as well as the general consent of modern interpreters and divines, has proved to be the most trustworthy. Selection is here absolutely neces- sary, and it has been made in these pages on settled prin- ciples, and with due regard to the limitations of space. No commentary of any value has been overlooked, and where anything has been derived from it, reference and acknowledg- ment have been made. The absence of names must not, then, suggest that the labours of others have been in any degree overlooked. They have simply not been selected for that continuous reference which careful consideration has shown, in a work of this particular character, to be more profitably restricted to those that have been systematically referred to. To speak more in detail is unnecessary. The names of the expositors principally made use of are well known, and their merits and characteristics by no means unfamiliar, even to general readers. The only name that may not be quite so well known is that of Hofmann, to whose acute commentary I have never failed to give the attention it deserves. It has, however, two faults, which, in my judgment, greatly interfere with its usefulness. It is too fine drawn in many of its interpretations, and it is far too much given to ingenious dissent from distinguished contemporaries, where the amount of exegetical difference is to a plain mind provokingly slight. However, the careful reader who follows up my references will hardly ever regret the pains he may have to bestow on this singularly quick-sighted, but confessedly somewhat diffi- cult, interpreter. The great use I have found in him is that of precluding over-hasty acceptance of current and plausible interpretations. Of living commentators it is obviously not desirable for me to say more than to express my respectful recognition of labours that have been well bestowed, and work that has been well done. There are two English Commentaries, however, xil PREFACE. to which I may be permitted very briefly to refer, as I have received from both much that has reassured me in my own judgment in difficult passages, and much that has led me to test my results when I have not found myself in agreement with them. The works to which I refer are the singularly attractive Commentary of Canon Evans, and the full, careful, and comprehensive Commentary of Principal Edwards. They have been used but little directly in the construction of this Commentary, as the lew operis is of a different nature and its general character settled long before I had the pleasure of seeing either of these agreeable volumes. ‘Their influence, if any, has been indirect, but I desire not the less gratefully to mention it. There is, I think, nothing further in this Commentary that requires to be alluded to. Systematic reference will be found, as before, to our best Anglican divines, and par- ticularly to their sermons. For this feature of my Commen- taries I have often received thanks and acknowledgments, and I have been very careful to maintain it in the present work, I have added largely references to distinguished German divines whose works were either not written when the former volumes of this series were published, or not accessible, as they now are, to the general reader through the media of the translations that have appeared in the ‘'Theo- logical Library’ of Messrs Clark of Edinburgh. ‘To these, rather than to the volumes in the original German, I have, for the sake of the student, been careful, where possible, to refer. Attention has been especially directed to some of the best recent treatises on Christian Ethics; this First Epistle to the Corinthians being pre-eminently that portion of Holy Scripture in which such references will be most useful and seasonable. It is to be regretted that the study of Christian Ethics, especially at the present time, has received but little attention from writers of our own Church. Few of us could fail largely to profit by a careful perusal of the three volumes on Christian Ethies by that great and sober thinker, the late Bishop Martensen, to whom, in Christian Dogmatics, we have already owed so much. In conclusion, it is my duty to account for the absence PREFACE. hi in this volume of the translation that has been appended to the preceding volumes of this series. The reason why it has been omitted is the very simple one, that a far better trans- lation than anyone that I could produce is now in the hands of the Christian reader. My former translations, and the notes that were appended to them, were designed to be hum- ble contributions to that which has rendered their further continuance unnecessary,—the Revised Version of the New Testament. When that which is complete has appeared, that which is in part may disappear. In taking this course, however, I have in no degree sought to spare myself either responsibility or labour. The reader has still from me, almost in a continuous form, a trans- lation, framed on the principles of my former translations; but instead of being printed at the end of the volume it now will be found in the body of it, running on continu- ously with the notes. This arrangement, it is hoped, will be found not only more natural under the circumstances, but also really more convenient to the reader. Of the Version itself to which I thus gladly give place, I do not, from the nature of my connexion with it, feel it either necessary or desirable to say more than this,—First, that I have gone over it in this Epistle in the closest manner, as a fair and unbiassed critic, and as one who has allowed no predilections or reminiscences of the past in any degree to influence his present judgment.. Secondly, that the sum and substance of this review of it has led me conscientiously to regard it as the most accurate version of this Epistle that has ever yet appeared in any language. That I have ventured to differ from it in a few passing details will be seen in the notes, but these differences are neither so many nor of such a character as to lead me to do other than I now do,—and that is to refer the student for a continuous translation of this Epistle, with all possible con- fidence, to the Revised Version. I now close these labours with one heartfelt expression of thankfulness to Almighty God that I have been permitted to continue and complete them. They have at times, owing to the ceaseless interruptions that have broken their course, seemed more than I could ever hope to carry through. Often XIV PREFACE. has it been painfully brought home to me that work such as this, to be well done, requires serene spaces of time, and the continuity of persistent effort. Still I have done all that I could do, consistently with the great duties in which I have been, now for nearly a quarter of a century, engaged. For the health and power to do this, again, with all solemnity, I return my deepest and adoring thanks to Almighty God. May He vouchsafe to grant, for Jesus Christ's sake, that this humble effort of waning life to set forth more clearly to the student the meaning of one of the most varied and most profoundly interesting portions of the Book of Life, may receive some measure of the Divine blessing, and not only may help, but encourage, others to study more closely the light-giving and life-giving Word of God. . I conclude with words that, from time to time, have been similarly used by me before, but never more deeply felt than now,— TPIAS, MONAS, ‘“EAEHSON. — Ae INTRODUCTION. HE ancient and famous city which bore the name, first of Ephyra, and then of Corinth, was not the Corinth, to the Christian inhabitants of which St Paul wrote this Epistle. The ancient city was taken, pillaged, and given to the flames by L. Mummius in the year B.c. 146. For roo years it lay in utter ruins; all the works of art that could be moved, were carried away, and the greater part even of the temples over- thrown and destroyed. Thus it remained till the year 46 B.c., when, for political reasons, Julius Cesar determined to rebuild the ruined city. A large number of Roman colonists, princi- pally veteran soldiers and freedmen, were sent there. Inhabi- tants from the neighbouring territories, heretofore forbidden to settle there, speedily flocked in; the relics of the ancient city were conserved ; what remained of the public buildings were restored; and Roman Corinth, the Corinth of this Epistle, rapidly rose to eminence and prosperity, and by the time St Paul visited it was probably a busy city of 100,000 souls.! The institutions were Roman, and, according to some writers, the language also,” but, however this may have been in the courts or in public documents, it is not very easily conceivable that the current language of the city was other than that in which St Paul addressed his Christian converts. Indeed it may prob- ably be correctly said that Greek art, Greek culture, and, alas, | Greek licence and sensuality, were now predominant in the \ restored city; and that Roman Corinth had in many things reverted to the usages of the Corinth of the past. Though all ' The exaggerated estimates that Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman have been formed of its population Geography, Vol. 1. p. 679. appear to rest upon a wholly in- * See Finlay, History of Greece, credible statement of Athenwus; see Vol. 1. p. 59. xvi INTRODUCTION. the revolting immorality to which Strabo alludes! must have belonged to an earlier period, yet it is perfectly clear from this Epistle that much of it had revived, and that the worship of Aphrodite, to whom the whole mountain against which the city rested was dedicated,? was among the most baneful of the idolatries of the restored city.* |The study of philosophy had also obviously revived. It was in no way likely that the now prosperous Corinth would not, to some considerable extent, have sought to maintain that cul- ture which still kept up the neighbouring city of Athens as the sort of University of the ancient world. The very position also ‘of Corinth largely contributed to the intellectual development of its inhabitants, and made it the cosmopolitan city of which we — find so many indirect traces in the Epistle, and so many passing notices elsewhere. That such a city should be selected by the Apostle as one of the most hopeful places for the foundation of a Christian Church, is only another proof of that direct guidance of the Holy Spirit of which we find such frequent mention in - the Acts of the Apostles. _— At this city, probably in the autumn of the year 52 or 53 A.D., some fifteen years after his conversion, the Apostle arrived from Athens, at the close of his second great missionary journey. He was alone, as he had been at Athens (1 Thess. iii. 1), Timothy and Silas having remained behind in Macedonia (Acts xvii. 14). He was alone, and, as he tells us in this Epistle (ch. i. 3), not unnaturally in weakness and anxiety. ' He appears soon to have met with, and probably converted, Aquila and Priscilla, who with other Jews had been recently expelled from Rome; and with whom, as being of the same trade, he at first abode, preaching and reasoning sabbath after sabbath in the Jewish synagogue (as was his regular practice; see Acts xvii, 2), and not without some distinct measure of success. The success was probably much greater in the case of the devout heathen who, as proselytes of the gate, were now readily admitted into the synagogues.‘ ' Strabo, Geogr. vit. 6. 20 (ed. Kramer). 2 Pausanias, Grec. Descr. M1. 4. 6, 7. * Dio Chrysostom (Orat. xxxvit. p. 463; cited by Wetstein), writing about fifty years later, probably speaks of it as méAis Tay oboay Te Kal yeyevnuevwy enadpoditordtn. The new Corinth soon became as profli- gate as the Corinth of the past. ‘ See Ewald, History of Israel, Vol. v1. p. 310 (Transl.). INTRODUCTION. XVil On the arrival of Silas and Timothy, a distinct change took place. The Apostle made still more energetic efforts, and espe- cially endeavoured to bring home to his Jewish hearers that Jesus was the true Messiah (Acts xviii. 5). This called forth such strong and even violent opposition that the Apostle solemnly and deliberately left the synagogue, and henceforth made the house of a proselyte of the name of Titus Justus, which closely abutted on the synagogue, the place in which he taught and preached. Great success followed. Crispus the ruler of the synagogue became a believer, and was baptized by the Apostle (ch. i. 14), and with him Gaius, probably a wealthy Corinthian,! and many others. The Apostle received special divine encouragement (Acts xviii. 9), and great spiritual success was vouchsafed to him. At present, however, the converts mainly belonged to the less educated and humbler classes (ch. i. 26 sq.) and, even after the preaching of the eloquent Apollos, do not appear to have been joined by many from the higher class. The Lord, however, even in these early days ‘ had much people’ in Corinth (Acts xviii. 10). After a stay of eighteen months (ver. 12),? an organized attempt was made by the Jews ; the Apostle was brought before the newly- come Proconsul, Gallio, and was charged with teaching the worship of God in a manner contrary to the law. The mild, and so far equitable, brother of Seneca at once dismissed the case, and the Apostle stayed some time longer (Acts xviii. 18) preaching and teaching, it would seem, without any further hindrance. After a time, we cannot say how long, the Apostle left Corinth for Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla, and, leaving them in that city, set sail for Czsarea, and passed onward to Jerusalem, returning shortly afterwards to Antioch. After some stay at Antioch, he went through Galatia and Phrygia, and finally returned to Ephesus, where he remained three years, and from which city, towards the close of his stay there, prob- ably in the spring of 57 or 58 a.p., he wrote this Epistle to the Corinthian Church. 1 When St Paul visited Corinth five years afterwards he appears to tained: see Rom. xvi. 23, and Meyer an loc. have stayed in the house of this Gaius,—the house being one of the places where either a regular Christian assembly was held, or where Christians were freely enter- 2? See Meyer i loc. as to the terminus ad quem of this period. Wieseler (Chronol. Apost. p. 45) makes the eighteen months extend to the time of the Apostle’s departure. a xviii INTRODUCTION. We now have to notice an event which had a great influence jon the development of Christianity in Corinth. Before St Paul had reached Ephesus, the eloquent Jew of Alexandria, Apollos, had been there, and had preached boldly in the synagogue. As yet he knew only the baptism of John, but after further teaching by Aquila and Priscilla, who were remaining at Ephesus, and probably gave encouragement to their earnest and eloquent pupil, he went to Corinth, and greatly aided the progress of Christianity. That which the Apostle had planted, he faithfully watered (ch. iii. 6), being especially successful, as it would seem, in some manner even more public than the synagogue, in con- vineing the Jews that Jesus was the Christ (Acts xviii. 28). Apollos returned to Ephesus probably after no long stay at Corinth, and was with the Apostle when he was writing this Epistle (ch. xvi. 12). Serious consequences, however, followed this visit. The substance of the preaching and teaching of Apollos, though beyond all doubt the same as that of St Paul, was, as certainly, different in form and manner. The speech and preaching of the Apostle were, as he himself tells us, studiedly simple and fundamental (ch. ii. 2), and, as befitted such teaching, were set forth neither with excellency of speech nor with per- suasive words of merely human wisdom (ver. 4). The preaching of Apollos, on the other hand, was marked by eloquence and power, and, as we know, was especially helpful, not only in attracting new converts, but in confirming those that already believed (Acts xviii. 27), and in confuting Jewish opponents. The result might easily have been foreseen. Two parties began silently to show themselves in the Church,—-those who adhered to the founder and his well-remembered plain, Spirit-moved form of teaching (ch. 1. 4), and those who were carried away by the energy and persuasiveness of the eloquent Alexandrian. The evil was greatly augmented by the arrival, most probably after the departure of Apollos, of teachers, perhaps from Jerusalem or perhaps from some of the Asiatic Churches, who claimed for their opinions the authority of St Peter, and gradually assumed in many particulars (questions connected with marriage, dis- tinctions of meats, and other minor features of Judaistic Christianity) an attitude of opposition alike to the supporters of St Paul and of Apollos. It is not difficult to conceive that the growing troubles and inconveniences arising from the opposition, one to another, of these three parties, called out a fourth party, INTRODUCTION. X1x which, in disavowing all party, and especially all human leaders, became, probably, in the sequel the most intolerant of all,—the sacred name of Christ being used as the designation of this fourth portion of the divided Church. Such were the parties at Corinth, of comparatively sudden and not unnatural emergence, injurious to the peace and growth of the Church, but, as it would seem, not of any lasting influence. By the grace of God, and through the appeal of the Apostle, they appear to have so comparatively soon died out, that Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthian Church only a generation after- wards, speaks of them as movements belonging wholly to the past, and much less injurious in their effects than the troubles and contentions of his own times.! We cannot, then, agree with those writers who represent these parties as actually defined factions, and who elaborately seek for traces of their respective opinions and influence in the various and broad questions that are treated of in this Epistle. That they would, however, have greatly endangered the progress of Christianity in the early development of the Corin- thian Church, may be confidently inferred from the firm manner in which they were dealt with by the Apostle. He had now returned (54 or 55 A.D.) to Ephesus, and, as we know, remained there for three years (Acts xx. 30). In the early part of his stay, the parties at Corinth were only in the process of formation. His attention was then more particularly directed, by the tidings from time to time brought to him, to the traditional sin of Corinth, which was showing itself even within the Church (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 21), He appears to have written a letter (ch. v. 9), now lost, which probably was mainly on this subject, and on the associated evils of the temple-feasts. Some- what later in the Apostle’s stay, the circumstances of the now more fully developed parties among the Corinthian Christians were mentioned to him by members of the household of Chloe (ch. 1. 11), and also the movements against his own Apostolic authority. Of these parties in the Church, and the disorders which they appear indirectly to have caused even in the public worship (consider ch. xi. 18 sqq.), the Apostle continued to hear (see notes on ch. xi. 18) till the very time of his writing this Epistle. The opening chapters show how seriously the Apostle dealt with the movement, and how his own son in the faith, Timothy, was ' See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. 1. cap. 47. xx INTRODUCTION. despatched to follow up by his personal counsels the Epistle that we know preceded him (ch. iv. 17, xvi. 10). The subject of the party-divisions thus called out the earlier chapters of the Epistle. There was, however, much beside that required to be noticed. It is not improbable that the Apostle was informed by the members of the household of Chloe of the grievous case of incest, and of the litigations before heathen courts, and perhaps also of the disorders that had shown themselves in the administration of the Lord’s Supper. A letter also had come from the Church of Corinth, apparently brought by Stephanas and others (ch. xvi. 17), asking questions relative to marriage and virginity (ch. vii.), the eating of offerings made to idols (ch. viii.), and, as also seems probable, spiritual gifts (ch. xii.), and especially the speaking with tongues (ch. xiv.), which many members of the Church were disposed greatly to over-value. To this letter it was urgently necessary that an answer should be returned; and that, more especially, as_the Apostle’s words in his former letter had, at least in one case, been misunderstood (ch. y. 9, 10), and in some others (consider ch. vi. 12, x. 23), not improbably, misinterpreted. Beside these subjects of the letter, it does not seem improbable, from the position of the chapter, that the doubts that were entertained by some members of the Corinthian Church on the resurrection of the body were mentioned by Stephanas and his companions, and that thus additional reason of the gravest kind existed for the Apostle’s writing to the Corinthian Church,—and at once. The letter was probably written in the concluding period of the Apostle’s stay at Ephesus, in the spring of the year 57 or 58 A.D., close about the time of the Passover, and was, most likely, entrusted to Stephanas and his companions to be delivered to the Corinthian Church. We have now, lastly, to notice, a little more precisely, the structure and contents of the Epistle, to which allusion has already been made. The Epistle consists of a short Introduction and seven well- defined sections, succeeding each other in the order which we have already sketched out, and closing with an additional section of final directions and communications. On each of these divisions it may be convenient to make a few introductory comments. The Salutation and opening words only take up nine verses (ch, 1. 1~9), but are of considerable importance as showing that INTRODUCTION. xxi the Church of Corinth, though disturbed by party spirit and even stained by some grievous sins, was making great spiritual progress. The language of thanksgiving which the Apostle uses is strong and unqualified. Great spiritual gifts had been bestowed on the Church. The members of it were manifesting that clearest token of true life,—they were watching and waiting for the coming of the Lord ; and they receive the solemn assurance that the Lord for whom they were waiting will strengthen and con- firm them unto the end. Such words should be well borne in mind. They were not the words of mere conventional courtesy, but convey the truth which the reader should well bear in mind, that the Church of Corinth, in spite of its many shortcomings, was a true and living Church, and that the very strife that unhappily had shown itself was a token of earnestness and life. Corinth was no Laodicea. The first portion of the Epistle (ch. i. 1o—iv. 21) deals with that strife seriously and fully. It discloses, plainly enough, how much of the existing state of things was due to spiritual vanity, and to seeking after a pretentious wisdom of the world instead of aumbly and thankfully accepting the simple and fundamental ruths of the Gospel. This aspect of the subject naturally leads the Apostle to speak very fully of the nature of his own teaching and preaching among them, and enables us to realize how com- pletely it was under the special guidance of the Holy Ghost (ch. il. 4, 10, 13, al.) that he preached as he did preach in worldly-intellectual Corinth. That the Apostle should pass from his teaching to his close relations with them as their spiritual father and founder (ch. iv.), and even conclude with words of implied threatening (ch. iv. 21), as well as of censure and rebuke, is only consonant with the whole tenor of one of the most pathetically, as well as indignantly, earnest remonstrances ever addressed by a Christian teacher and preacher to a Christian Church. The tone becomes even deeper and stronger in the portion of the Epistle which follows (ch. v. vi.), in which the Apostle deals with the revolting sin of the incestuous member of the Corinthian Church, and with the startling fact that the case was regarded by many with comparative indifference,—possibly as a phenomenon, more or less repulsive, with which they, the illuminated, had but little to do. This grievous sin, their appeal to heathen tribunals, and the excuses (involving even misuse of St Paul’s own words) which they were actually finding for the prevalent fornication —. xxii INTRODUCTION. which the Apostle had already rebuked in a former letter (ch. v. 9), form the substance of this second portion of the Epistle, and are dealt with in language of great power and persuasiveness. What might be considered the first great division of the Epistle, here closes, as the Apostle, in the third portion (ch. vii.), and indeed in the fourth (ch. viii. 1, xi. 1) and sixth (ch. xii.—xiv.) portions, passes to the questions which had been put to him in the letter brought by Stephanas and his friends. In this third portion the Apostle answers the questions relative to marriage and virginity. Some reactionary feeling against the prevalent licentiousness in Corinth may have led many of the more earnest members of the Church to advocate an asceticism which required to be discussed with the utmost circumspection and prudence. The Apostle thus enters into many details, leaving apparently no single question unanswered that had been either raised or sug- gested in the Corinthian letter. In all these details he refers everything to the highest principles, and solves the varied moral problems which the chapter suggests in a manner that must have brought home the truth of the last words of this section to every thoughtful Christian in whose ears this marvellous chapter was read. In the fourth portion (ch. viii. r—xi. 1) the Apostle deals at considerable length, and in a very varied manner, with the sub- ject of eating meats offered to idols, and taking part in feasts ' made in their honour. In dealing with the complicated questions connected with this subject, the same lofty tone that we have already observed will at once be recognized by every careful reader. Everything is referred at once to principles of the loftiest strain, and sometimes of the deepest suggestiveness. Digressive statements are made as to his own freedom, rights, and course of action (ch. ix. 1-23), all marked by the highest tone ; the significance of ancient history is demonstrated (ch. x. 1-13) ; momentous truths are revealed (ch. x. 19 sq.), and the frightful perils that lurk, in what might at first sight seem merely debat- able questions, disclosed with a startling force and cogency. This portion of the Epistle concludes with the same precept with which, practically, the first portion concludes: the Corinthian Christian was to imitate him who first brought Christianity to Corinth, and whose principle was,—consideration toward all, that, by so showing it, all might be saved (ch. x. 33). In the fifth portion, the Apostle pauses in his answers to the questions of the Corinthian letter to notice two grave matters INTRODUCTION. XXiil which had been probably mentioned to him by his informants from Chloe’s household,—the disorderly habit of women publicly praying with uncovered heads, and the serious irreverence that was shown in connexion with the Lord’s Supper. These particu- -lars, belonging more especially to Christian order and worship, he may have felt it desirable to dispose of before he entered into the larger and more complicated subject of the Spiritual Gifts, and the concluding doctrinal subject of the Resurrection of the body. In both the particulars noticed in this section the same mode of treatment may be observed which we have already referred to,—the appeal to first and highest principles in reference to practices that might have been thought simply to belong to general order and discipline. The woman’s covered head is shown to depend, on the one hand, on principles connected with the very creation of man, and, on the other, upon the mysterious presence of unseen beings at prayers and prophesyings (ch. xi. 10), when none save mortal worshippers could have been deemed to be present. The irreverent participation in the Lord’s Supper is shown to involve a sin so grave that in some cases death was its ordained chastisement (ch. xi. 30). Such revelations must have produced a profound effect, even on the self-satisfied Corinthian, and restored that ‘sober and decorous piety’ which Clement of Rome mentions as having been one of the earlier characteristics of the Corinthian Church.! The sixth portion (ch. xii.-xiv.), from the form of words with _ which it opens, was probably in answer to questions relative to the special gifts which had been bestowed by the Spirit upon the Corinthians. The questions most probably turned mainly upon the mysterious gift of tongues, and the relation in which it stood to prophesyings and other supernatural gifts. The whole sub- ject is discussed with great fulness. The obvious tendency to over-value speaking with tongues is corrected, and that principle on which every gift really and truly depends for its proper exercise,—the principle of Christian love, set forth and glorified in the sublime chapter (ch. xiii.) which speaks not only of Love’s present characteristics, but of its enduring nature when all other gifts and graces will have either changed their nature, or passed finally away. The careful directions which follow in regard of speaking with tongues and prophesying (ch. xiv.) serve very suitably to remind us of the large outpouring of the Spirit that had plainly been bestowed on the Church of Corinth. ' See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. cap. I. XXIV INTRODUCTION. The seventh portion, on the Resurrection of the body, must therefore not be regarded as an indication that the Church of Corinth had, in any general manner, fallen away from the faith in regard of this vital doctrine. Even the ‘some among them ’ (ch. xv. 12) that doubted or denied the resurrection of the dead, did not so much deny the fact of existence after death, as the possibility of a resurrection of that body which seemed, by its very constitution and dissolution, to belong to the heritage of corruption. It was the mystery of the future body, and the form and manner in which the dead were again to appear on, so to say, the theatre of being (ch. xv. 35), that constituted the real difficulty, and is, consequently, dwelt upon more especially in this great doctrinal chapter. The difficulties that were felt were exactly the difficulties that we might have expected would have been felt in a city like Corinth. And these difficulties to some extent lingered, as thirty years afterwards we find Clement of Rome still dwelling upon the subject, and seeking to rekindle a faith ' which still seemed to be feeble and languishing. The concluding portion of the Epistle contains instructions as to the collection for the poorer brethren in the Mother-Church of Jerusalem, and the many directions and words of encourage- ment which the circumstances of such a Church as that of Corinth would be sure to call forth. One flash of vivid warning (ch. xvi. 22) lights up even the closing salutation, but fades away again in the words of deepest affection,—7 dyarn pov peta ravTwv ipav év Xpiord "Inood (ver. 24),—with which this varied and noble Epistle comes, appropriately, to its close. On the genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle no reasonable doubt has ever been entertained. The earliest refer- ences to it are,—Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. capp. 47, 49; Polycarp, ad Phil. cap. 11; Ignatius, ad Eph. cap. 2; Epist. ad Diogn. (ap. Just. M. Opp.), p. 502 c (Colon. 1686) ; Ireneus, Her. 11. II. 9, Iv. 27.3; Athenagoras, de Resurr. p. 61 c (Colon. 1686) ; Clem.-Alex. Pedag.t. 33; Tertull. de Prescr. cap 33, and the Muratorian Fragment, in which this Epistle holds the first place in the enumeration of the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. 1 See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. cap. 27; comp. capp. 24 sqq. WPOY KOPINOIOYTS TWPOTH. Grace and peace to the Church of God in Corinth, AYLAO®X khytbs arroatodos Xpic- I. tov Inood dia Oedyjpatos Ocov, Kal YwoO&ys 6 adehfds, 7H Exkhynoia TOU Oeov 7H 2 a I. Xpicrov “Incod) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., on appy. preponderating authority ; Rec., Rev., Westc. and Hort, *Incod Xpicrod. INTRODUCTORY (ch. i. I-9). 1-3. Opening address. 1. KkAnTds &méaToXos] ‘called as an Apostle, i.e. an Apostle, not by the appoint- ment of man, but by the special calling of God, ‘ vocatione Apostolus,’ Beza: designation of himself in his most solemn official character, not without some oblique reference to those who were undervaluing his Apostolical authority; xaual epiue Tacay avtay olnow, KAnTOY éauTdy eiméy, Chrys. This peculiar desig- nation only occurs here and in Rom. i. 1; and in both places seems designed by St Paul to enhance his authority and office; comp. Fritz. Rom. 1. c. Vol. 1. p. 4. Here he tacitly maintains his special apo- stolic calling against gainsayers and Wevdardaroro: (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 13) ; there he states his full credentials to a Church which he had not yet visited. The allusive reference in the present case is doubted by Meyer, as opposed to the general conciliatory tone of the address, but appy. without sufficient reason. On the Apostle’s varied designations of himself in the commencement of his Epp., see Riickert on Gal. i. 1, and notes on Col. i. 1; and on the true meaning of yerbal adjectives in -ros (capability, and the results of it ; and so with no relation to time as in the case of passive participles), Donalds. Gr. § 302. h. Xpirorod "Incod] ‘of Christ Jesus ;’ not dependent on «Antés (Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterbuch, 8. v. p. 333, and appy. Copt.), but on amdorodAos (Syr.), or, rather, on the compound expression KAnTds the possessive genitive marking whose minister he was; see notes on Eph. i. 1: Sta GeArpatos Ocod] ‘by the will of God;’ modal clause, appended to the whole preceding member (comp. 2 Cor. i. 1, Eph. i. 1, Col.i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1), and probably added by the Apostle not simply to enhance his authority, but also to give pass- ing expression to that thankful remembrance of God’s grace and merey, which any allusion to his calling and Apostleship seems rarely to have failed to call forth ; see notes, on Eph.i. 1. Theremark of Bengel in loc. thus seems substantially correct ; ‘mentione Dei excluditur auctoramentum humanum (Gal. i. 1); mentione voluntatis Dei, meri- tum Pauli; cap. xv.8ss.2 EZwoOévng 6 d8eAbds] ‘ Sosthenes owr brother ; ’ not the same as 6 adeAgds wou (2 Cor. il. 13), In which there is appy. a B amdaroAos, 2 TIPOS KOPIN@GIOYS ITPOTH. - ovon &v Kopiv0a, jyyracpévois €v Xpiot@ Inood, Kd- more special reference to official brotherhood, but simply with general reference to a common brotherhood in Christ: ‘ Sosthenes, the Christian brother,’ one of of adeApol; comp. ch. xvi. 12, Rom. xvi. 23, 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, and notes i loc. Of the Sosthenes here mentioned, nothing isknown. The name was sufficiently common (see Michael. Hinleit. Vol. 11. p. 1214) to make it probable that he was not identical with the Sos- thenes mentioned in Acts xviii. 17 (Theod.), especially as both the position and the implied conduct of the apxiovrdywyos (as a complainant with the rest, ver. 12) seem at vari- ance with such a supposition (see Meyer on Acts 1. c.), but was prob- ably some Corinthian convert, at that time in the company of St Paul, who was sufficiently well known to the Church in Corinth to be a ‘socius salutationis.’ He is named by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 1. 12) as one of the Seventy Disciples, and is said in later tradition to have been Bishop of Colophon; see Menolog. Grec. Part 11. p. 17, and comp. Acta Sanct. for June, Vol. vu. p. 706, Giraud, Bibl. Sacrée, Vol. xxiv. p. 190. Had Timothy now been with the Apostle (but see ch. iv. 17), we may infer from 2 Cor. i. 1 that he would have been here associated with him in this salutation. 2. TH eKKA. TOD Ocod]} ‘to the Church of God :’ solemn and signi- ficant designation of the Christian Church (comp. ch. x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9, 2 Cor. i. 1, al.); the former substantive expressing the combined ideas of selection and yet of union (od xwpicmod GAAG Kal Evdaews Kal Tup- gdwrias early bvoua, Chrys.; comp. Osiander in loc.), the latter (gen. of possession) specifying Whose the Church was, and so its holiness,—an idea subsequently emerging more distinctly in the clause jyy:acuévors ev Meyer and others properly compare the corresponding expression of the Old Testament nny bap Numb. xvi. 3 (LXX, ovr- aywyh), Deut. xxiii. 2 (LXX, exkAnola), of which this is the amplifica- tion and 7Ajpwors : see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. v.17, Vol. u. p. 186 sq. The question which this expression and the commendatory notices which follow might readily suggest,—How could St. Paul so characterize a Church in which there was so much of which he had to complain,—is well answered by Calvin im loc. ‘nempe quia Evangelii doctrinam, baptismum, ccenam Domini, quibus symbolis censeri debet ecclesia, apud eos cernebat.’ There is thus nothing in this and the succeeding comments either of mere prudential courtesy, or ideal presentation of a whole (Stanley on ver. I-9), but simply a true and formal recognition of the real essence of a Christian Church ; see Jackson, Creed, xm. 4. 4, Vol. x11. p- 26 (Oxf. 1844), Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 404 (ed. Burton). On the definition of the Church, see Field, Of the Church, Book 1. ch. 6, and for the various patristic definitions, Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1 p. 1049 sq- TH oton év Kop(v@e] ‘which is im Corinth ;’ ‘]getum et ingens paradoxon,’ Beng. : local specification, following, with a studied fulness of language (oto7 is not redundant; the Church was ex- isting and flourishing), the general expression which has just preceded : so 2 Cor.i. 1; comp. Rom.i. 7, Eph. i. 1, Phil. i. 1, where the participle Xpiot@ "Inood. —s -©6 Ca’. —_ <. L. 2. 3 A A ae ie Tols aylous, TY TATW TOLS ETLKAOVpPEVOLS TO GVOLLA TOr is similarly inserted. Lachm. and Treg. place this clause after 7y:ac- mévots k.7.A., With good, but insuffi- ciently supported, authorities. Aytacwévoig év Xptote ‘Incod] ‘men sanctified in Christ Jesus ;’ appositional clause defining the éxka. Tov Ocov in its spiritual relations and characteristics, and, by its transition into the plural, marking still more clearly the collective idea, involved in the term; comp. Winer, G7. § 58. 4, Kiihner, Gr. § 359, 2. The sanc- tification is studiedly specified as being ev Xpiorg@ "Inood; it was in Him, in the sphere of His holy influence, and of His redeeming love, that alone the ayiacuds could be realized. The Holy Spirit is the source (2 Thess. ii. 13), Christ Jesus the sphere (Eph. i. 4), and His pro- pitiatory sacrifice the medium, of its existence and operation ; comp. Heb. x 10; KAnTOIis a&yfous] ‘called as Saints ;’ almost saints by vocation, ‘per vocationem Sancti,’ Beng. on Rom. i. 7; concluding clause, specifying, with some little emphasis, the fact of their KAjots (ob yap mpoonAGeTe mpBTo1, AAA’ EKA- Ore, Chrys.), and the results it in- volved and implied. The xAjjo.s was from God the Father (comp. Usteri, Lehrb.u. 2.2, p.269, and see notes on Gal. i. 6), and what it involved was the holiness of those to whom it was vouchsafed ; comp. I Pet. i. 15. It is perhaps slightly doubtful (see Calvin im loc.) whether the words imply that the being Gyo is in- volved in the calling (‘ causa sancti- ficationis vocatio’) or is the object and design of it (‘ sanctitas vocationis scopus’). Practically, as Calvin has remarked, the two views become co- incident; the former, however, seems most in accordance both with th context and with the preceding They were ‘ holy because called’ (August.). In both passages the uh ad@aiperos Hrwy (Sui- das, Lex. s. vy.) seems the idea which the verbal kAnrds is mainly designed to conyey. The observation of Usteri (Lehrb. p. 279) that St Paul makes no difference between kAnrol and éxAexTol is appy. not perfectly cor- rect. Though there is not that sharp distinction which we recognize in Matth. xxii. 14, still the character- istic difference between the terms may usually be recognized, kAntds seeming to mark the more external and inclusive, éxAexrds the more in- ternal and privileged ; consider Rom. Vili. 33, Tit. i.1. Both terms are united in Rey. xvii. 14, KAnrol kad €kAekTol kad mioTol. K.7.A.] ‘together with all that are calling upon ;’ further specification KAnTos ardoroAos. ovv TaoLV “of those who are included by the Apostle in his opening words of address; viz. all that call upon the name of our Lord, wheresoever they may be; mdvtwy tav ev maon TH YI féeuynta. miortev, Chrys. The con- nexion and reference of these words must fairly be pronounced very doubtful. We may (a) connect the clause closely with what precedes (so Lachm., Treg., De Wette, al.) ; or, retaining the punctuation of the text, we may (b) connect the clause with the leading words TH éxkAncia (Syr., Aith.), but limit the zayrl térw to the regions with which the Church of Corinth was geographically connected, 7.¢. to 6An TH “Axaia, as de- finitely specified in 2 Cor. i. 1 (Meyer, al.) ; or we may (c) adopt the wider reference as stated at the beginning of this note. The objections to (a) B2 4 MIPOS KOPINOIOY2 TMPOTH. ¢ © A > A Ass ‘ , 2_ A Kupiov jpav ‘Incov Xpiotov ev ravtt ToT@, avTwV 2. ad’ray Kal quay) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very learly preponderating authority ; Rec., abray re kat jpar. seem to be well founded. The parallelism of clauses is lost; the sort of natural pause after the second specification, kAnrois aylos, disappears; the emphatic, and suflici- ently independent, statement (comp Rom. i. 7) is clogged by an unlooked for addition, and the simple sequence of clauses (contrast Phil. i. 1) need- lessly disturbed. To (b) the objec- tions are less strong, as a species of justification for the limitation is cer- tainly suggested by 2 Cor.i.1. But the rejoinder seems clearly valid, viz. that if any such local limitation had been intended the Apostle could hardly have failed, with such inclu- sive words as év mav7) témp at the end of the clause, very clearly to have specified it. We therefore, with the Greek expositors (see Cramer, Caten. in loc.), adopt (c), and regard the clause as a kind of echo of the opening words 7H éxkAnolg Tot Ocod, which, though limited in the words that follow, seem to have given a tone of catholicity to this impressive address. The use of oty rather than of the simple «al seems worthy of notice. It does not merely append the wdyras Tovs émxad. k.7.A. to those already addressed, but implies also the closeness of their association ; cuvdmre. Trois KaTa& Thy oikouwevny memiorevkdot, Theodoret. Td bvopa k.7.A.} ‘ the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:’ sc. as that of their Saviour and God; with a plain and direct reference to the Divinity of our Lord: ‘nota etiam quod Christum dicit invocari a fidelibus, quo ejus divinitas comprobatur,’ Calv.; com- pare Acts ii. 21, ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16, Rom. x.12. The formula émuadctodat 7» vvoua is derived from the LXX, where the verb is found similarly in connexion with évoua Kupiov as the translation of Dya ND, and in three different constructions,—with simple acc. (Gen. xiii. 4), with él and dat. (Gen. xii. 8), and with év (Psalm exy.8). That the phrase either here or elsewhere in the N. T. expresses the idea of ‘calling to aid’ (Stanl.) cannot be clearly substantiated. The verb not uncommonly involves this meaning when with a defining infin. (Herod. v. 80) or with an accus. of the person (Thucyd. 1. 101), but, when in com- binations like the present, is obvi- ously restricted to the invocation of prayer and adoration. The real force of the em is in fact directive (Rost u. Palm., Lew.s. v. éml, C. b.): the prep. marks the direction of the address, the appended words or immediate con- text the nature and character of it; comp. Fritz. Rom. vol. 1. p. 31. avrav Kal hwav] ‘their and ours,’ i.e. ‘belonging to them and—to us,’ ‘ipsorum et nostro,’ Vulg.; comp. Rom. xvi. 13, Thy wntépa adrod Kal éuod. It is somewhat doubtful whether these words are to be con- nected (a) with the more remote Kupiou quay "Ino. Xp. (Chrys., Theod., al.), as slightly correcting and en- hancing the preceding juav (wa beitn Kowdv deandrny bvta, Theoph. 1); or (6) with the immediately preceding mavrl romp (Vulg., appy. Copt. and Arm., Cyril ap. Cram. Cat., Theoph. 2, al.), as carrying on the idea of catholic unity which seems to pervade the whole address. Most of the Greek commentators In 35. 4- 5 ‘\ e A 4, Cos ‘\ > , > XN “ \ Kal nuav* Xapis vty Kal eipyvn aT Ocov TatTpds 3 Hav Kal Kupiov “Incov Xpiorov. I thank God for your spiritual progress. Christ will strengthen you to the end, are in favour of (a),—a consideration of some moment, as showing the impression produced by the words on readers who spoke the language: the exegetical considerations, how- ever, founded on the obviously un- emphatic character of the first 7uav, and the great awkwardness of the resumed connexion after the inter- calated words, are so strong that, with Cyril (see above), Estius, and most of the modern expositors, we adopt (6), and understand the words, not simply and frigidly as defining the locality, scil. ‘where they may be, and we may be’ (Theoph. 2), but as implying that every place that was locally theirs (comp. Zeph. ii. 11), was spiritually that of the Apostle and his helpers ; ‘ quod omnium una sit ecclesia,’ Estius. Any indirect reference of the words to the state of division in the Church of Corinth (Phot., Vitringa, al.) does not seem probable. Though the Apostle, not uncommonly, uses expressions at the commencement of his Epistles which seem designed to indicate the pur- port and substance of the whole*(see Wilke, Rhetorik, § 146. d), he gives them in all cases a clear prominence (comp. Gal. i. 1), and not, as here, a subordinate and unemphatic position. 3. xdpis tyiv «.7.A.] ‘Grace be to you and peace ;’ ordinary form of salutation in St Paul’s Epp., in- cluding both the xatpew of the Greek (Acts xv. 23, James i. 1), and the pibys (2 Sam. xviii. 28, 1 Chron. xii. 18) of Oriental greeting, but each of these in its deepest and most spiritual sense, xd¢pis being the divine > lal nr lal , Evyxyapiot® T®@ Oew pov mavToTe 4 grace vouchsafed to man (see notes on Col. i. 2), eiphyn the holy and blessed state that results from it. On this and other forms of saluta- tion in the N. T., see notes on H’ph. i. 2, Koch on 1 Thessal. p. 60, and especially the interesting treatise of Otto in Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol. (for 1867), Vol. x1r. p.678 sqq, where the formula is fully discussed, and referred for its origin to Numb. vi. 25,20; Kal Kupfov x.-7.A.] scil. kal amd Kupgiov x.7.A. So ex- pressly Syr., Arm., both of which repeat the preposition. The union of the two genitives under the vin- culum of a common preposition is one of the numberless hints we find scattered throughout St Paul’s Epistles of the consciously felt and recognized coordination (opp. to Reuss, Théol. Chrét. v. 8, Vol. 1. p. 77) of the First and Second Per- sons ofthe blessed Trinity ; rod Matpds kal Tov Yiod Semvis thy iodTyTAa, Theod. As here, a prep. usually associated with the causa principals, so, in Gal. i. 1, a prep. usually asso- ciated with the cawsa medians, is used in common reference to both substantives; comp. notes on Gal. l. c., and in regard of inferences, in this subject, from the use of prep- positions, Waterland, Works, Vol. 11. p. 51 (ed. 2). 4-9. Hopeful thanksgiving for the spiritual state of the Corinthian Church. 4, Evxapiotd 73 OeG pov] ‘I thank my God:’ so Rom. i. 8, Phil. i.3; comp. Phil. iv. 19, Philem. 4,and, as a good commentary on the 6 IPOS KOPIN@IOY> TIPOTH. ‘ c “A | eS “~ , Le) “A “ / et Tepl vpav ent TH xdpuTe TOV Oeod TH Sobeioy vpiv 5 ev Xpiot@ “Inood, o7u pronoun, Acts xxvii. 23, ob eim, ¢ kal Aarpedw. The expression T¢ Oc@ pov probably marks that feeling of vivid loye and devotion which, on every recital and remembrance of the blessings of the present, seems ever to have been freshly called up into the heart of the thankful Apostle ; dd moAAjs aydans Toy Kot- voy mdytwv Gedy idioroe?rai, Theoph. The pov is omitted by Westc. and Hort on important, but appy. in- sufficient, authority. On the pre- sent use of evxapioreiy (‘quod pro gratias agere ante Polybium usurp- avit nemo,’ Lobeck, Phryn. p. 18), see notes on Phil. i. 3, and on its four meanings, see notes on Col. ide. arepl bay] ‘ concern- ing you,’ ‘de vobis,’ Beza. Though it may be admitted that the distine- tion between the use of wep) and imétp (ch. x. 30, Eph. i. 16, y. 20) in the present and similar expressions is scarcely appreciable (see notes on Gal. i. 4, and.on Thess. i. 1), still there is a shade of distinction which it may be desirable to attempt to maintain in translation (as here: so Rey.), and which was probably felt by the writer. The distinction of Weber (cited in note on Phil. i. 7) viz.—‘ wept solam men- tis circumspectionem, irép simul animi propensionem significat ’—is sometimes clearly recognizable. On the primary meaning and etymologi- cal affinities of wepl, see Donalds. Crat. § 177 sq. él TH xdpeTe] ‘ for the grace ;’ ground and basis of the thankfulness, the prep. with the dative marking as usual that on which the action rested as its founda- tion; see Winer, Gr. § 48. b., and notes on Phil. i. 13, iii. 9g. This > ‘ > “ad 2 ev tavtt éemdoutiaOnte &v foundation was God’s grace, i.e. His gifts of grace to the Corinthian converts (ai So0cica abrois Swpeal, Theod.), more distinctly specified in ver. 5 sqq.- év Xptote "Incod)} ‘in Christ Jesus,’ i.e. in member- ship and vital union with Him: He and He alone was the blessed sphere in which the gift of grace was bestowed; see notes on Gal. v. 6, Hooker, Serm. ut. Vol. ut. p. 763 (ed. Keble), and the valuable com- ments of Plitt, Glaubenslelre, § 55, Vol. u. p. 76. The assumed equiva- lence, in the present case, of the expression to 5a Xp. "Ino., though sustained by the high authority of Chrysostom (see his note in loc.) is clearly to be rejected. All that can properly be said is that the form of expression may perhaps be chosen to remind the reader that, outside that blessed sphere, and so apart from the ‘meritum Jesu Christi’ (Est.), the grace here spoken of could not have been imparted tothe Church of Corinth. 5. Ste év wavti«.t.A.] ‘that in everything ye were made rich in Him ;’ explanation of the foregoing em) 7H xdpitt, and more detailed statement of the ground of the evxapiotia, The wAotvros was from God (Chrys.), without any limitation (2 Cor. Ix. 13.5 “Comprise fun: ‘v1, 18), and in the same blessed sphere (€v arg): ‘ditamur im Christo eo quod simus Corporis ejus membra,’ Calvy. évy twavtTl Adéyo Kal mwaon yvéoer) ‘in every form of utterance and every form of know- ledge,’ scil. ‘in every power of out- ward expression and every form of inward knowledge; specific illustra- tion of the preceding év mayti; God’s The. G57. ? ~ “A > \ /, ‘ , # ‘\ ‘\ avT@, &v TavTt héyw Kat TacH yrooer, Kaas 75 pap- 6 , la) a 3 / > ee JX Y e n TUpiov TOV XpioTov EBeBarwOy &v duly, WoTE vas 7 gifts had been so richly bestowed that they had both knowledge (of divine truth; comp. Clem.-Rom. I Cor. i.) in the heart, and power to express it with the lips, cal vojoa kal eimety ixavol, Chrys. The mean- ing of Adyos is somewhat doubtful, as it may mean, either (a) the word spoken to the Corinthins, and so ‘preaching or teaching’ (De Wette, Maier, al.), or (6) the word they spoke, scil. ‘utterance,’ Auth., Rey.,‘ verbo’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm. The latter meaning seems substantiated by the closely parallel passage, 2 Cor. viii. 7, where the associated substantives tiotis, yva@ous, crovdh, being all subjective render it highly probable that the remaining Adyos is also to be taken in a similarly sub- jective sense; 6 Adyos kal 7d eyvwoue- vov épunvevet, Orig.; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6. So Meyer, Neand., al., and appy. all the Greek expositors. 6. KaSds] ‘according as,’ ‘sicut’ Vulg., Clarom.; reference of the éwAouT. «.T.A. mentioned in the pre- ceding verse to the cause, owing to which, and in accordance with which, it took place; see Eph. i. 4, Phil. i. 7, al. In cases like the present the par- ticle has somewhat of a causal refer- ence (7d Ka0és, avtl Tod SV Gv, Theoph: —but too strongly), the primary idea of accordance with (‘ even as’) passing into that of cause or reason (‘inasmuch as’), but yet not being wholly obliterated ; see notes on Eph. i. 4, and on the particle generally, notes on Gal. iii. 6. Td Haptuptov Tod Xptotrod] ‘ the testi- mony of Christ ;’ gen. objecti (Winer, Gr. § 30. I. a); the witness concern- ing the Lord delivered by St Paul and his fellow-teachers, the Gospel- message generally; 7d Khpuyua rod Xpiorov, Theoph. ‘testimonium Chris- ti, vel de Christo, Evangelium vocat,’ Calv.; see 2 Tim.i.8, and notes in loc., and comp. Acts i.8. Origen appears mainly (see, however, the whole pass- age) to have regarded the gen. as a gen. swhjectt, ‘6 Xpiords, ty’ ottws dvoudow, apxiuaptup éorl,’ ap. Cramer, Caten. Vol. v. p. 12; so too Hofmann in loc., comparing Td papripioy Tod @cov, ch. ii. 1.; but, as Neander right- ly observes, such an expression as‘ the testimony given by Christ, or emana- ting from Christ’ (gen. originis) is unusual, and indeed, in a general context like the present, unpreced- ented. €BcBardOn év bpiv] ‘was confirmed among you,’ scil. by the gifts of the Holy Ghost vouchsafed to you (comp. xapicuati, ver. 7), whether in the form of inward graces and deepened faith, or of outwardly manifested powers, 3:4 onuelwy rab xdpitos, Chrys., ‘per concomitantia charismata et miracula,’ Beng. The bulk of the older commentators re- gard the BeBaiwois as more exclu- sively rising from miraculous gifts (Theod., Theoph., al.); Meyer and most later expesitors, following Caly. and Calov., urge the preceding raées and the use of BeBaioty in ver. 8as limiting the reference to the deepened conviction arising from faith, and from the ‘interna Spiritus virtus,’ Calv. Neither restriction here seems desirable : the Apostle says that the spiritual enrichment of his converts is due to, and in accordance with, the confirmation of the Gospel by the Spirit ; this may in some cases have been of an outward, and in others more of an inward nature; moAA@y @av- Katwv, apdrov xdpiros, Chrysostom. § IIPOS KOPINOIOYS TPOTH. py) vaTepeto Oar ev pndevi yaplopari, amexdexome- The év duty is thus more naturally ‘among you’ than ‘in animis ves- tris;’ it was the general state of the Corinthian Church (observe the duds in the words immediately follow- ing), the grace of God bestowed generally among them, that called forth the ebyapioria; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 13, and for a discussion on the whole subject, Vitringa (’ de testi- monio Christi in credentibus con- firmato’), Obs. Sacr. 11. 1. Some difficulty may be felt, and has been felt, in regard of the statements of this verse and of the paragraph generally, when contrasted with the general tenor of the Epistle. The natural solution appears to be this, that the Apostle is here speaking of the Church of Corinth as a whole, and a potiort parte (consider Acts xviii. 10), but that elsewhere, when compelled to reprove and to censure, he is dealing with sections and por- tions of the general whole that un- happily deserved the altered tone. 7. Gore twas x.7.A.] ‘80 that ye do not fall short in any spiritual gift,’ ‘are as richly endowed with all spiritual blessings as any other Christian community ;’ result of the BeBaiwois, and so, statement on the negative side of what in ver. 5 was expressed on the positive side. Some expositors make the éore de- pendent on ver. 5 (comp. Chrys., Beng.), but it seems much more in accordance with St Paul’s closely linked style to adopt the more im- mediate connexion with what pre- cedes: that the members of the Corinthian Church did not sufier want (iorepetcOat is passive, not: middle: comp. Phil. iv. 12, and €rdoutlaOyre, ver. 5) in any spiritual gift was a consequence (Sore) of the confirmation above specified. On the use of éore (‘ consecutionem alicujus rei ex antecedentibus signi- ficat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 771) see notes on Gal. ii. 13. xaploparr) ‘gift of grace;’ in its widest sense, as including on the one hand, in accordance with ver. 5, inwardly working gifts of the Spirit, and on the other—in accordance with the use of the word in pas- sages of appy. similar import (Rom. xii. 6, 1 Pet. iv. 10 sq., and, probably, I Tim. iv. 14; see notes) and its prevailing reference in this Epistle (cap. xii—xiv.),—specially given powers (kal yap mpopnrikis per- €\uxov xdpitos, Kal yAdrras dia- gépors €Addovy, Theod.), and mani- festations of them. Most of the older expositors limit the meaning to the latter sense; modern exposi- tors mainly adopt the former. Ina passage of this general nature it seems best to include both. Under any circumstances it is certainly not to be limited ‘ to gifts of insight into the unseen world’ (Stanley),— an interpretation obviously narrow and insufficient. On the term xdpic- ma (exc. I Pet. iv. 10, only used by St Paul), see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. s. v. p. 581. a&tekSexopnévous | ‘ patiently wait- ing for,’ while thus blessed and endowed; anarthrous participial clause, defining the present spiritual state, and, so to say, spiritual atti- tude of the Corinthian Church. While thus enjoying once promised and now present blessings they were patiently and earnestly waiting for the greater promise of the unfolding future; totvrwy d5¢ amndAaicare Wa Thy Sevrépay emipaveray TOD Swriipos npoouelyntre, Theod. It is certainly I. 8. 9 vous THY aroKkahupw ToD Kupiov nav “Inood Xpuc- 8 rod: ds Kal BeBawoer tas ews Téovs aveyKyjTOUS worthy of notice how, even in that one community in which we might have expected to find it otherwise, the deep and universal feeling of the whole early Church (comp. Phil. iii, 20, 1 Thess. i. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 8, Tit. ii. 13, Heb. ix..9) was in no sensible degree modified: though individuals might doubt (1 Cor. xy. 12), yet, in the Corinthian Church generally, the watchword, the ‘tes- sera’ of love and hope, was ever the same—papdy a0d, I Cor. xvi. 22. On these words see an eloquent sermon by Archer Butler, Sermons, Series 1. 1. On the nature of the so called ‘tertiary’ predication in- volved in the participial clause (‘awaiting as ye are’), see Donalds. Gr. § 489, and on the meaning (‘ studiose constanter expectare ’) of the significant double compound amekdéxecOa, Fritz. Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 150 seq., notes ow Gal. v. 5, and on Phil. iii. 20. THV atoKkdAvuwiv «.7.A.] ‘the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ ;’ here not merely the ‘manifestation’ (1 Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8, al.), but, with more distinct reference to its super- natural character (Neander) and to the holy mystery that still sur- rounded it, the ‘ revelation,’ 2 Thess. i. 7,1 Pet. i. 7; amoxdduby Aéyet, Sexvis Ott may gr) dpara, Orig. (Cram. Cat.), and, in words nearly identical, Chrys., and Theoph. in loc.; compare Plitt, Glawbenslehre, § 79, Vol. 11. p. 390. 8. 85 Kal BeBatdcer bas] ‘who shall also confirm you :’ consolatory mention of the blessing that would be vouchsafed to the patient waiting specified in yer. 7, the os referring to the nearer and now more promin- ent subject “Incovs Xpicrds (cis BeBator; “Ino. Xp., 6 Adyos, 7 copia, Orig.), and the «al pointing out the correspondence (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) of the BeBalwois with the Bengel and many recent expositors (e.g. De Wette, Osiander, Hofm., al.) refer the os to the pre- ceding eds, ver. 4, but a reference so distant is here especially harsh and forced, and, it may also be added, not in harmony with the Apostle’s usual mode of connexion; this use of the relative pronoun in linking verses together by a continuous reference to the leading word that has inumediately preceded being a distinct characteristic of the Apostle’s style; comp., for example, Eph. i. 6 sq., Col. i. 15, 18, 27 sSq., and see the remarks on this passage in Winer, Gr. § 23, I. It is the remark of Chrysostom 7 loc. that in no other Epistle do we find the name of our Lord so fre- quently reiterated as in the present group of verses. In accordance with this studied accumulation, the title rather than the pronoun (comp. Alf., Hofm.) recurs after the ev 77 nuepa below, and gives to the whole clause a solemn and appropriate emphasis; comp. Eph. iv. 12, Col. ii. 11, and Winer, Gr. § 22. 2, p. 130. The BeBatwors here alluded to is the confirmation in hope, faith, love, and holiness which the Lord will vouchsafe to all that patiently wait for them; compare Rom. xvi. 25, 1 Thess. ili. 13. €ws TéAOVS | ‘unto the end ;’ not merely of life, but, as the context obviously sug- gests, Tod ai@yvos tovTov; compare 2 Cor. i. 13, and the use of the cog- nate term ovyTeAeca in Matth. xiii. amekdox7h. 10 IIPOS KOPINOIOYS TIPOTH. 9 & TH HEPA TOD Kupiov Huav Incod Xpiotov. Tis Tos 39, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20. It is not justly to be inferred from expres- sions like the present that the Apostle was deliberately of opinion that the mapovola was near at hand (Mey., Maier, al.; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. p. 342, Reuss, Théol. Chrét.v.19, Vol. 1. p. 211 sq.) ; the utmost that can be said is that such expressions are but reflections of that vivid hope and longing for the Lord’s speedy return (Hebr. x. 37) which was the very life- current of the early Church. Love (2 Tim.iv.8) may at times have made what it hoped for seem near, and, in passages of a purely practical nature, may have imparted a hue to words and thoughts; but, whensoever it was necessary to speak with precision, love merged into éemvyvaors, and reve- lation became distinct and explicit ; consider 2 Thess. ii. I sq., see notes on I Thess. iy. 15, and compare (with some reservations) Messner, Lelre der Apost. p. 281 sq. aveyKArntovs] ‘soas to be blameless, wnaccused,’ [ut absque accusatione sitis] Syr.; proleptic use of the adjec- tive, introducing a separate and fur- ther (tertiary) predication; comp. Matth. xii. 13,1 Thess. iii. 13, and (ac- cording to the true reading) Phil. iii- 21. Onthis usage, in which the adjec- tive expresses the effect of the main verb, and so approximates to the con- secutive sentence, sc. ote aveyKa. elvai, see Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, p. 550, notes on 1 Thess. l. c., and Donalds. Gr. § 497 compared with § 442 dd. Meyer rightly observes that this blamelessness in the day of Christ is due to the power of faith and the consequent sanctification of the Spirit ; the avéyxAnros will not ap- pear in the last day as an avauaprnros, but as a Kkaiwvh xrtiois ey Xpisr@ (2 Cor. v. 17), preserved in that blest state to the end by the enduring efficacy of faith and the lastingly sanctifying power of God, comp. 1 Thess. v. 23. TH hepa Tod Kup.) ‘the day of the Lord,’ scil. of His wapovota and subsequent judgment of the quick and the dead ; time when the 7d avéy«Anrtov will be specially manifested ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 5. The expression 7mépa Kvplov seems to be strictly parallel to the myny p) of the O. T. (Joel i. 15, al.), but, in its exact reference and amplitude, varies according to the context; contrast 1 Thess. v. 2, 4, 2 Thess. i. 10, in which the reference is more immediately restricted to the simple wapovola, and the present passage, ch. v. 5, 2 Cor. i. 14, al., where the reference seems more especially limited to the final judg- ment; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. y. 19, Vol. 11. p. 223, but, in reference to the somewhat precarious deduc- tion that these different applications of the term imply a strict contem- poraneity in the events specified, see the more sober comments of Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 287, and the remarks of Plitt, Glawbensl. § 79, Vol. m. p. 390 sq.; see also Dorner, Chr. Doctr. Vol. 1v. p. 387 sq. (Transl.). 9. miatds 6 Ocds) ‘ Faithful is God ;’ ground of this hope and con- fidence,—the faithfulness of God, and His trueness to His nature and promises; ev Tq worety & emaryyeAAeTau miotés é€ott Aadav, Athan. contr. Arian. 11. 10, Vol. 1. p. 478 (ed. Bened.) ; comp. ch. x. 13, 1 Thess. v. 24, 2 Thess. iii. 3, and, on the relation of this to the other attributes of God, Plitt, Hvang. Glaubensl. § 24, Vol. 1. p. 180 sq. On the true LD, Oe 17 > ea 6 @cds, Sv ob exdyjOynTe eis KoWwwviay Tov Tiov > an? a lal an , ¢ las avtov Inoov Xpiotov Tov Kuptov yer. Be united. Iam told there are divisions Tlapaxané 8€ tas, adedfot, dua TOU 10 among you. To give no cause for this I rarely baptized. objective significance of these attri- butes, see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 46, p. 91 sqq. (Transl.), Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 15, Vol. 1. p. 200 sqq. (Transl.). 8U od ExAHOnTE] ‘by whom ye were called ;’ specifi- cation of that which more particu- larly showed God’s faithfulness— His having called them into com- munion with Him from whom was to come their BeBatwors (ver. 8): if Christ was not thus to confirm them, God, in calling them into communion with Christ, would have called them to no purpose, and would be morbs no longer; comp. Meyer i loc. On the present use of d:@ in con- nexion with the causa principalis, —‘usus ibi tantum admissus ubi nullam sententie# ambiguitatem cre- aret,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 15,—see the careful comments of Winer, Gr. § 47.1, and comp. Rom. xi. 36, Gal. i. 2, and notes in loc. In such cases the prep. is not simply equivalent to imo [Phot.; D'FG actually read 5p’ 06), i.e. it does not definitely mark the act as proceeding directly from the subject (comp. Donalds. Crat. § 179) and the result of his imme- diate power, but rather as generally brought about by him,—the nature of the agency, whether mediate or immediate, being left out of con- sideration; comp. Plato, Symp. p. 186 BE, Te ‘iatpikn, domwep A€yo, maca 5% Tov Peovd TovTOV KuBEpyarat, and see Bernhardy, Synt. p. 235 sq. The parallelism of this use with the instrumental, or as it is sometimes called, the ‘dynamic’ dative, is noticed by Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. ise a On the regular ascrip- tion of the «Ajais of Christians to God the Father, see notes on Gal. 110s Kotvaviay Tod viod avrod] ‘fellowship of His Son,’ scil. ‘in Him and with Him;’ gen. objecti, the verbal gen. (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 25. 2) marking with its fullest and most inclusive force both the object shared in and the object with whom there was the kowwvia; see 2 Cor. xiii. 13, Phil. ii. 1, and notes in loc., and, on the varied and inclusive uses of the so- called gen. objecti, the comments and illustrative list of examples in Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 215 sq. This kowwvia is not only the fellow- ship resulting from adoption (Gal. iii. 26; Theod.) and spiritual union with Christ (comp. Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 264) in this life, but also and more especially, as the Greek commentators rightly observe, that fellowship with our Lord in His glory (comp. Rom. viii. 21) which will be vouchsafed to His faithful servants in the world to come ; €f dtouévomey kal cupBactred- couev, 2 Tim. ii. 12; see also 2 Thess. ii. 14. The vio@ecia ever involves the KAnpovoula; when that in- heritance is vouchsafed in its most full and blessed measures, the kowwvia with our Lord is realized and complete ; comp. Rom. viii. 17, and see especially Usteri, Lehrb. u. I. 2, p. 186 sq. I. THE PARTIES IN THE CHURCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLE (ver. 10-ch. iv. 21). 10-16. Exhortation to unity, and censure of party spurit. 10. Mlapaxad@ 8 x.7.A.] ‘But I exhort you, brethren ;’ transition, by 12 IPOS KOPINOIOYS TIPOTH. ; , cal , c nr > Lal nw ’ & dvopatos Tov Kupiov pov "Incod Xpiotod, wa 70 avTo Néynre TavTes, Kal [7 7 ev duly oxiopata, ATE O€ means of the slightly oppositive and contrasfing 5€ (‘novam rem cum aliqui oppositione infert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356), from the introductory edxapicrtia and the accompanying assurance to the sub- sequent warning: ‘it is true you have been thus called, but, that you may not fall short of that calling, I exhort and warn you;’ ‘severius eos tractare incipit,’ Calv. The appended aéeAgol somewhat softens the address, but at the same time gives it an individualizing earnest- ness ; comp. ch. vii. 29, x. I, xiv. 20, Gal. iii. 15, iv. 12, al. The verb mapakadeivy is very frequently used in the N. T. (more than a hundred times), and with all gradations of meaning, from that of entreaty and consolation to that of exhortation and admonition; here the verb seems clearly used in its latter and more austere sense, not ‘ obsecro,’ Vulg., Clarom., Ath., or ‘rogo,’ Syr., Copt. (comp. Chrys., Theoph., al.), but ‘hortor,’ Beng., Neand., Hofm.; see notes on Eph. iv. 1, and on Thess. Vv. I. 8a Tod dvépartos x.T.A.] ‘by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ;’ ‘using His name as the mediwm of my exhorta- tion ;’ see Rom. xii. I, xv. 30, 2 Cor. x. I. The name of the common Lord is in itself a call to unity (comp. Hofm.), and a protest against unchristian division; see Eph. iv. 5, and comp. Wilke, Rhetorik, § 146, Pp: 472. tva Td adtTd x.7.A.] ‘ that ye all speak the same thing ;’ purport of the exhortation blended with the purpose of making it: tl éorw d mapaxarda; iva, pnol, Tunpwrire mwavtes kal wh oxiCnabe, Theoph. On this use of tva, which may be called its swbfinal use, see — notes on Eph. i. 17, Phil. i. 9, Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, and comp. Wilke, Rhet. § 79, p. 273. The exhortation of the Apostle is, first, that there should be a consensus oris in their outward profession of religious belief (con- trast ver. 12), and secondly (fre 5¢€ K.T.A.), & consensus animorum in respect of their inward feelings and persuasions ; comp. Polyb. Hist. v. 104. I, Aéyew €v kal taidrd, Aristot. Pol. 11. 3, wavras 7d ait A€yew Gd) There is not necessarily involyed in the expression any assumption of inward community of sentiments (comp. Est.): this, as Chrys. and the Greek expositors rightly observe, appears afterwards. What the Apostle is now speaking of is the péxpt pnudtov dudvosa, Chrys. Asit was, ‘ diversa dicebant,’ Beng.; comp. ver. 12. Kal pr) 7 K.T.A.] ‘and that there be not divisions among you ;’ substan- tially the same thought expressed negatively (comp. Rom. xii. 14), but with a further and more inclusive re- ference to sentiments and feelings; ‘schisma, discidium animorum,’ Beng.; see notes on ch. xi. 18. The antithesis in what follows thus becomes much clearer; ‘ tribus loquendi formulis eos ad concordiam hortatur. Primo talem consensum inter eos requirit, ut una sit vox omnium; deinde malum tollit quo unitas scinditur et dissipatur ; tertio rationem exprimit vere concordiz, ut scilicet mentibus et voluntatibus inter se conveniant,’ Caly. Theterm oxicuara (‘rents,’ ‘divisions’) is here, by the év duty, clearly limited to divisions within the Church,— divisions arising from diversity of bey Kaddy. EE ee ee —<——S—Ss ee C ————————— ee a i 10. 13 , > a“ b} aA a. Xi (S. la bY lal , KATYPTLO [EVOL €V TW QAUT@ VOL KQL €V 77) QUT) YYV@ORN- sentiments and persuasions: comp. John xii. 40—43, which is a good commentary on this place. Are St katnptiopévor] ‘but rather that ye be made perfect ;’ statement e contrario, and on the positive side, of the essential purport of the exhortation, and of that which ought to take the place of the state of things forbidden in the preceding negative clause. The exact distine- tion between this use of 5¢ after a nega- tive and the more usual obh—aAAa has not always been stated with complete precision; comp. e.g. Wilke, Rivet. § 83, p.271, Delitzsch on Heb. ii. 4. It may be observed then, that in ov« —daaAdAd, the adda calls attention to the preceding negative, and so sharpens the form of the antithesis ; but that in od followed by 5é, the d¢ does not point back to the negative, but, with somewhat of its primary force (see Donalds. Crat. § 155), simply places in juxtaposition to the negative clause an affirmative clause, which may limit conditions, or totally reverse the substance of what has preceded, according to the context; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 360, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 171. In other words, ob«—aAAa marks simple and formal anti- thesis between contiguous words and clauses; ov—dé, opposition arising from sentiments and contrasted con- text; compare ch. ii. 10: see also leh. 11,6, iv. 131%. 12, X27) X11.513; —an Epistle in which this form of antithesis is appy. more common than elsewhere in the N.T. The fuller formula ov pévov—deé is found in Plato; see the exx. in Stallbaum’s note, de Legg. wu. p. 666 EW—a treatise where it occurs several times. The exact meaning of kaTnptTispévor is perhaps here slightly doubtful. The question is whether the predominant meaning is (a) simply ethical, scil. ‘ brought to completeness,’ ‘made perfect,’ ‘perfecti,’ Vulg., Clarom., téAezo1, (icum. (Suid. karapri(w: reAeid), or (6) metaphorical, scil. ‘ coagmen- tati,’ Beng., ‘apte cohexrentes,’ Caly. —with reference to the quasi-phy- sical meaning of the preceding oxlopata; compare Matth. iv. 21, Mark i. 19. The prevailing use of the word in the N. T. (comp. 2 Cor. Rit. oN, Galeavicet,. tebhessyai, To: Heb. xiii. 11, 1 Pet. v. 10), and the fact that oxicuara, in passages like the present (see John vii. 43, ix. 16, X. 19, I Cor. xi. 18, xii. 25), does not seem to present any conception based on the physical aspect of the word (‘scissure,’ Clarom.) seems to warrant our deciding in favour of (a): so Syr., Copt. (sebtot, ‘parati’), and appy. all the Greek commen- tators ; comp. notes on Gal. vi. I, and the good collection of exx. in Steph. Thesawr. (ed, Dindorf and Hase) s. v. The remark of Hofmann is just,—the Apostle does not exhort that the cyicuara should be re- paired, but that there should be none at all. év TO adTE@ vot K.7.A.] the same mind and in the same judgment ;’ sphere in which the katdptiots was to take place, and the completeness to be shown; comp. Heb. xiii. 21. The Corinthians were to be united and made perfect in the same mind and realm of thoughts (comp. Rom. viii. 23, Eph. iv. 17), scil. they were to think the same things,—and in the same judgment and application of those thoughts (comp. I Cor. vii. 40), scil. they were to arrive at the same mental 14 IPOS KOPINOIOY= IIPOTH. IL €dnrdOy yap por Trepi bar, dde\pot pov, v7rd Tov 12 X)dns ore Epidoes ev viv elow. decisions in ref. to the subjects to which thought was directed; see Hofmann in loc., who has well un- folded the meaning of this clause. The reference of vods more to the theoretical (kara thy rlarw, Theoph.), and of yvéun more to the practical (kara thy aydrnv, Theoph.), though derived from Chrysostom, is not in harmony with the prevailing mean- ing (‘sententia,’ ‘ judicium,’ Meyer), of yvéun in the N. T.; see Acts xx. 3, I Cor. vii. 25, 40, 2 Cor. viii. 10, Philem. 14, Rev. xvii. 13, 17, and notes on Philem. l.c. On the mean- ing of vods, see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 439, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 86, b., and notes on Phil. iv. 7 and on 1 Tim. vi. 5. ments also will be found in Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol., p. 212 (Transl.). II. é€8nAd6On yap «.7.A.] ‘ For it was declared, or made clear, to me,—not simply ‘ significatum est,’ Vulg., but ‘made 8%Aov,’ ch. iii. 13, Col. i. 8,—explanatory confirmation of ver. 10, and grounds for the fore- going exhortation ; va wh apyjowvta pdptupas mapdyet, Theoph.; comp. Chrys. &dSeApol pov] Not without full pertinence. The soothing and kindly address shows the real spirit in which the charge (87 Epides x.7.A.: ‘rem suo nomine appellat,’ Beng.) is preferred, which the Apostle now feels compelled to specify, and the true tenor of the implied rebukes that follow; mdéAw adeApods adtovs dvoud le’ Kay yap 7 dijAov Td GudpTnua ovdey KwAvEL GdEA- ods kadreiy rt, Chrys. tmd tOv XA6nNS] ‘by those of Chloe’s household ;’ whether children (Grot., Beng.), members of the family (Theod., al.), or slaves (Stanl.), we Some good com- héyw S€ TodTO, OTe cannot say ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. z) It is equally doubtful whether Chloe was a Corinthian (comp. Syr. ‘miserunt’), or a member of the Church of Ephesus, known to the Corinthians, and specified as one who, it would be felt, could be thoroughly relied on. The former opinion is perhaps slightly more probable; the members of the household might have come over, not necessarily to give the informa- tion, but for purposes of trade, &c., and they might have used the op- portunity to disclose (6nAody ; comp. Beng.) the state of things in Corinth. The name, as Meyer observes, was a _surname of Demeter (Anufrnp «- xAoos, Soph. did. Col. 1600) ; comp. Pausan. Gr. Descr. I. 22. St. EpiSeg ev tyiv eiorv] ‘that there are contentions among you.’ The use of the term épides (comp. Tit. iii. 9, where the plural appears under the later form épeis) seems clearly to show that the divisions in the Church had not as yet gone be- yond internal contention and dissen- sion. As, however, the next verse shows, these contentions were dis- playing themselves in a practical way, and party divisions were now actually in existence (7, ver. 10; not yevntat): the oxlouara were the manifesta- tions of the épides, and are elucidated in the following verse. 12. Aéyo 8 Todtro] ‘I mean this;’ capnvelas evexev, Gicum.,— the 5€ introducing, with that slight form of antithesis (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p. 361) which in English is often best preserved by the omission of all particles, a further specifica- tion of the épid5es, and the rovro, as in uses of this formula similar to a a Tet rye: 15 exaoTos vpov éyer Eyo pev eit Tavdov, “Eya dé the present (ch. vii. 35, Col. ii. 4, are obviously different), directing the attention to what is to follow; see Gal. iii. 17, Eph. iv. 17, and notes in loc., and comp. todto 5é gnut, I Cor. vii. 29, XV. 50. Zxactos byav] ‘each one of you,’ ‘each one among you;’ the evil was general and prevailing; od yap pé- pos GAAG Td may emeveueTo Tis EKKAN- atas 7 pOopd, Chrys. éya pév ett Mavadov) ‘I for my part am of Paul,’ se. ‘ belong to the party that specially claims him as the exponent of their views, adopt the principles of his teaching ;’ the uév preparing the reader for further assertions of party differences which follow (each 5€ marking difference not only from the first member but from the rest; see Baiumlein, Par- tik. p. 164), and the idiomatic gen. after the auxiliary verb (see Winer, Gr. § 30. 5) purposely leaving the exact nature of the relation unde- fined. On the wide variety of mean- ing in the genitive when thus associated with the auxiliary verb, see esp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 227 sq. A full description of the various opinions that have been enter- tained on the debated subject of the Parties at Corinth does not fall with- in the scope of this commentary. It may be observed however, by way of a general summary,—(a) that they seem to have been real parties, not yet necessarily very sharply defined, but still plainly distinguishable, and self-distinguishing ; consider Clem.- Rom. Cor. 1. 47, where the language seems to imply the former existence of defined party; mpocekAlOnre azo- arddots pewaptupnucvors* (b) that it seems probable that the Corinthian Church was broken up into fowr loosely defined parties, these four declarations including all such de- clarations as were then put forth among them (see Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, g, rem.), and that the names were not merely assumed names (Chrys. and the Greek expositors),—with this the Xpiorod would be inconsis- tent,—but really as here specified ; (c) that the order is probably de- signed, not, however, as expressive of the Apostle’s consciously-felt humility (‘ gradatio, qué Paulus se infimo loco ponit,’ Beng.), but as roughly marking the successive emergence of the parties which are specified. First, by the nature of the case, came the Paul-party ; then the Apollos-party (comp. Acts xix. 27); then, probably by the evil working of emissaries from Jerusalem, the Cephas-party (see below); then a body of Christians, who, in disavowing and setting themselves against all other parties, themselves lapsed into aparty, and became guilty of using the very name of the Lord as a party- name ; (d) that this last-named was really a party, and, as such, merited the same censure as the rest. In claiming the Lord’s name as belonging more especially to themselves (comp. 2 Cor. x. 7), and as marking their in- dependence of human teachers, they became, in effect, as sectarian as those from whom they separated themselves: ‘illi qui a Christo Christianos se dicebant, quatenus ab aliis sese per schisma separabant, illo nomine sibi solum appropriato, schismatis rei erant,’ Calov.; comp. Hofm. im loc. The copious literature on this subject, and the many theories that have been ad- vanced will be found very fully dis- cussed in the last edition of Meyer’s 16 MPO KOPINGIOY2 13 "Amo\\e, Eya dé Kya, eyo S€ Xpiorov. Commentary on this verse, and sum- marized in his Introduction (§ 1). The difference of opinion is most marked in reference to the ‘ Christ- party ’ and its relation to the others. On this last-mentioned party the reader will find a careful, exhaustive, but not convincing, treatise, by Beyschlag, Stud. wu. Krit. for 1865, Part 11. p. 217 sqq. A few comments may now be made on the remaining details of the verse. *ATroAAG] ‘of Apollos ;’ gen. of ’AwoAAd@s, Acts XViii. 24; comp. notes on Tit. iii. 13. Immediately after the name of the Apostle is that of one with whom his own name would naturally have come into immediate connexion and contrast. The eloquent Alexandrian arrived at Corinth a few months after the Apostle had left it, and was permitted to water what St Paul had planted (1 Cor. iii. 9). The teaching of the pupil of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 26) was un- doubtedly identical in substance with that of St Paul (consider 1 Cor. iii. 6, and comp. Acts xviii. 4 with xviii. 28), but it is scarcely doubtful that in manner it was different. The elo- quence of the fervid Alexandrian _ was soon favourably contrasted with the studied plainness (1 Cor. ii. 1; comp. 2 Cor. x. 10) of the teaching of St Paul. \What was felt to be so different in manner was soon assumed to be so in matter; prefer- ence readily passed into partisan- ship, and partisanship into the sectarian divisions which are here condemned. It does not seem unlikely that the distinct unwillingness of Apollos to return soon to Corinth (i Cor. xvi. 12) was due to his know- ledge of all this, and was a practical protest against it: PBAérwy ordow MPOTH. Mepép- nal rapaxhy ev th bm’ abrod éxxanala, odk eredixdero Tov Tdémov, GAAG map- exaépnoev, Origen., ap. Cramer, Cat. Vol. v. p. 340. Knoa) ‘of Cephas ;’ Jewish designation of St Peter (Aram. NBD) usually adopted in St Paul’s Epp. (1 Cor. iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5, Gal. i. 18, ii. 9; the more familiar Mérpos occurs only Gal. ii. 7, 8), and here repeated with- out any studied significance (opp. to Estius). Those who made use of this name were probably Judaizing teachers who, arriving at Corinth soon after the return of Apollos to Ephesus, might have readily availed themselves of the growing spirit of division to put forward the higher authority of the Apostle of the cir- cumcision (Gal. ii. 7, 9), and to introduce with a factious nationality (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22) observances in non-essentials (comp. ch. viii.) which were alien to the freedom of the Gospel. It would seem from the tenor of this Ep. and esp. of 2 Cor. (see ch. xi. 5, xii. 11, 12, al.) that their teaching involved more of per- sonal opposition to St Paul than of that deliberate advocacy of Judaism (Gal. iv. 10, 21, vi. 12) which marks the false teachers of Galatia ; comp. Meyer, Hinleit. § 1, p. 3. éyo 8 Xpriorod] ‘and I of Christ;’ spiritually proud utterance of yet a fourth party (assuredly not of the Apostle, Est., al.), who in their recoil from what they might have justly deemed sectarian adherence to hwman leaders, evinced even a worse than sectarian spirit, by claiming to stand pre-eminently in the same relation to Christ, the common Lord, in which the others claimed to stand to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas: év ton raée kad tov Aconétny Kal rovs SotvAous eri- i oats pt |e Ve atau 6 Xpiotds ; py Taddos eoravpdOn sep Geoav, Theod.; see Hofmann 7m loc., p-17sq. The ultimate tendency of the first three parties was, by parti- sanship, to place each one of their human leaders on a level with the Lord their master ; that of the fourth party, by their spiritually-proud claim of the common Lord as more especially their own leader, not only so to lower Him, but, by the very nature of their claim, to rend His unity. Each evil tendency is rebuked in the questions that follow; the second mainly in the first question ; the first, in the questions that follow. 13. pepeptotat & Xptrotds] ‘Hath Christ been divided?’ Em- phatic and even indignant question (Chrys.), immediately suggested by the ey® 5€ Xpiocrod, but still, as its very form seems to hint (contrast the more answer-requiring “4 K.7.A. below), so far general, as in fact to amount to a statement of the only hypothesis on which the above-men- tioned state of things could be sup- posed to exist: epwrd udvov, ws amo- Aoynuevov Tov atémov, Chrys. As the exact force of the words has been somewhat differently estimated, it may be well to narrow discussion by laying down the following prelimin- ary positions: (1) the whole tenor of the verse seems to show that the present clause is not assertory (Meyer; Lachm., Wesic. and Hort), but interrogative ; so appy. all the Vy. (Goth., ed. de Gabel., may seem doubtful), and all the Greek exposi- tors (Theod. notices but does not adopt the former view), and the majority of the best modern com- mentators. The assertory form, as Hofm. well says, is a ‘ rhetorical im- possibility.’ (2) menepirrar cannot mean ‘ hath been apportioned,’ scil to one party (see Wordsw. in loc., who urges Rom. xii. 3, 1 Cor. vii. 17, 2 Cor. x. 13, but not conclusively ; the idea of dispartition lies in all the passages), but, in accordance with its usual and lexical meaning (diaveuew wepixds, Hesych.), ‘hath been divided, portioned out,’ ‘ divi- sus est,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Goth., Copt., Arm.; comp. Mark vi. 41, Luke xii. 13. (3) Xpiords must have the same meaning here as in ver. 12. In both it means, not the ‘ mystical body of Christ’ (Est., al.), nor the ‘Evangelium Christi’ (Grot.), but simply the historical and persona Christ. Upon these premises the meaning of the clause would seem to be ‘ Hath Christ been di- vided ?’ *‘ Hath He been so portioned up (KareTéeuere Tov Xpiordv, Chrys.) that one party can claim Him more especially as their leader, and so put themselves in contrast with others that claim Him only mediately and indirectly ?’ The fourth party did not probably deny that the others had Christ kara wépos, and mediately ; but for themselves they claimed to have Him directly and exclusively. See Hofmann i loc., who has inves- tigated this difficult clause with much care. The fault of Meyer’s interpretation (independently of the maintenance of the assertory form), —‘ Christ is thus divided into gect- Redeemers,’ would seem to be this, that the case would then be not a Hepiouds of one Christ into parts, some claiming to have Him exclu- sively, and implying that others only had Him in part (consider 2 Cor. x, 7), but really a multiplication of independent Christs, to which neither the text nor the circum. C 18 IPOS KOPINOIOYS ITPOTH. e 14 vpdar, 7) eis TO Ovopa Ilavdhov eBartiobnte ; evyap- an ~ an oO rn LloTO TO OG OTe ovdéva wpaov éBdatica et pt , ‘ fee 9 ta ¥ 9 > ‘ Ss 15 Kpiovov kai Tdiov, wa py tis ely OTe els TO euov 14. T@ Oc@] These words are omitted by Westcott and Hort, with BN’, but retained in the other edd. on what would here seem, to be prepon- derating evidence. stances of the case appear to point. The Corinthian dissensions, though grievous, did not involve such a disruption of Christian unity as must have followed a setting forth of ‘ sect-Redeemers ; ’ contrast 1 Cor. neh ete ek Paes Fe pa Matados «.7.A.] ‘Was Paul crucified for you?’ rebuke, by means of a question very clearly involving a prompt negative, of the first three parties specified in ver.12; € €repos Tov bréep Huay aveTAn cTavpdy* avTov Kal Aeydueba, Cyril. ap. Cram. Caten. On the subjective question i #.7.A. (reference to the opinion or know- ledge of the person interrogated), see Donalds. Cratyl. § 190, Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 4, and, on the meaning of iwép in passages of this nature (pri- marily ‘in commodum,’ and thence with the more special idea of redemp- tion ; see Tit. ii. 14), notes on Gal. iii. 13. Lachm. reads zepl, but with insufficient evidence (B D'; Goth., Syr. appy., Copt. appy.), and in opp. to the general usages of é7mép in ref. to Christ’s death ; consider, however, 1 Thess. v. 10, where the enhanced uncial evidence makes the decision more difficult. A elg Td bvopa «.7.A.] ‘or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?’ scil. as that of him whom ye were to confess and believe in; comp. Matth. xxviii. 19: & jv Tav moray étalpera pdvoy kal woAARs Kndenovlas, Tad’Ta rlOnat Tov otavpdy kal 7d BSarrioupa, Chrys. ; ‘crux et baptismus nos Christo asserit,’ Beng. On the meaning of Barricew eis, see notes on Gal. iii. 27, and Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. un. 2, D103, 14. evxaptord TG OcG] ‘I give thanks to God ;’ ‘Dei providentia factum esse agnoscit, ne inde arri- perent occasionem in se gloriandi,’ Calv. The Apostle recalls with thankfulness the fact that he had not personally baptized at Corinth ; he does not specify this as the result of design on his own part (see below), but as providentially so ordered. We may appy. infer from the pas- sage that there were some at Corinth who did lay a stress (comp. Theod.) on the person of the baptizer (some of the leaders of the Cephas-party might have boasted of such a relation to St Peter), and that their number would have been increased if St Paul had baptized many with his own hands; see Hofmann in loc. Dp: 22, Kplotrov kal Pdaiov] ‘Crispus and Gaius ;’ the former the ruler of the synagogue con- tiguous to the house of Justus, Acts xviii. 7, 8; the latter, the hospitable man mentioned by the Apostle in Rom. xvi. 23 as 6 gé€vos mov, kal bans - Tijs ekxAnolas, The prominent posi- tion of the former, and the close connexion of the latter with the Apostle, may account for his having personally baptized them; ‘ viros amplissimos Paulus sué manu bap- tizavit,’ Bengel. Crispus is said (Const. Apost. vii. 46) to have been afterwards Bishop of Adgina. 15. tva py tis etary) ‘in order Po rao ogy aC, 17. ovopa éBamrtio Ante. 19 éBanrioa dé kal Tov Stehava 16 otkov* hourdv ovK oda Et Twa addov EBarricd. I was sent to preach, and that not in the language of an earthly wisdom that comes to nought, but simply, Christ crucified. Ov yap améoreev we Xpiotds Bat- 17 15. €Bamricdnre] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority : Rec. é8drrica. that no one might say ;’ not exactly the definite purpose of the Apostle (Aéyet 5& kal Thy aitlay 5.’ hv moddAods ov eBarrioev, Theod.), but, as the context seems to suggest, that in- volved in his providentially directed course; comp. 2 Cor.i.9. This is one of those numberless cases in the N. T. in which the exact shade of meaning of iva must be fixed by the context ; see notes on Hph.i. 17. elg TO Epdv Svowa] ‘into my own name ;’ scil. with any implied or included reference to my own name; not, however, as marking any anti- thesis to the use of the name of Christ (De Wette),—for Christian baptism could only have been in His name, —but as hinting at the personal relation which might have thereby been contracted with the baptizer ; see Hofmann zm loc., and Schriftb. Walsar. 2,"p. 163. 16. éBdmrica &€) ‘I baptized too ;’ the 5é here appending with a slightly corrective force (see Winer, Gr. § 53. 7, b) another exceptional case, which had just come into the Apostle’s memory. The oppositive and copulative here approach very near to each other, the oppositive, however (almost ‘yes, I baptized’), perceptibly predominating; see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2, kal tov Etehava olKkov] ‘the household of Stephanas as well ;’ a household afterwards mentioned in terms of so much respect (ch. xvi. 15,17, amapxy THs “Axatas) that we may suppose it to have been from the very first of a tone and character that deserved the exceptional act on the part of the Apostle : ‘ Stephanas quis fuerit non constat,’ Est. Aoutréy] ‘ further,’ ‘ceterum,’ Vulg.; in ref. to what remained to be added to complete the foregoing statement. On the use of the word (Acts xxvii. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 2 Tim. iv. 8), and its distinction from the more definitive 7) Aouméy (Eph. vi. 10, Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8. 2, Thess. iii. 1), see note on I Thess. iv. 1, and on 2 Tim. iv. 8, and for similar in- stances of its use, esp. in later Greek, Schweigh. Polyb. Lez. s. v., and the exx. in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. (ed. Dindorf and Hase). 17-25. ‘The nature of the Apos- tle’s teaching and the justification of ite 17. Od yap «.7.A.] ‘Hor Christ sent me not to baptize ;’ em- phatic and partially abrupt confirma- tion of the principles on which he thus providentially acted (671. . werd pedovs kal omaviws €Bantica, Phot.), and specification of the nature of his teaching (ver. 17-31); this para- graph, with the greater part of what follows (to ch. iv. 21), being directed against those who possibly injuriously contrasted the plainness of speech of the Apostle with the eloquence and rhetorical power of Apollos (Meyer, Hofmann, al.). The statement in the text is not to be explained away (‘comparate dictum,’ 02 20 IPOS KOPINOIOYS TPOTH. tilew adda evayyedileorbar, odk ev copia ddyou, 18 iva pi) KevwOf 6 oTavpds TOD XpioTod. 6 Adyos yap ot.; comp. Severian in loc.). eaching and preaching were the duties primarily and even pre-emi- nently enjoined on the Apostles generally (Mark xvi. 15, Luke xxiv. 47; obs. the subordination of the participial clause in Matth. xxviii. 19), and most certainly so in the special case of St Paul; comp. Acts ix. 15, xxii. 15, 21, xxvi. 16 sq., and on the form ovx—aaAdAd, notes on ver. 10, and the good remarks of Winer, Gr. § 55. 8. ovk évy codiqa Adyou] ‘not in wisdom of speech ;’ clearly not ‘ wisdom which consists in mere words’ (Stanl.), but as Orig., év tpavdoe: A€kews : nega- tive clause dependent on the pre- ceding edayyeA., and defining, dis- tinctly and objectively (ov«), that element or form in which the preach- ing was not to be manifested. It may be doubted whether the codia refers principally to the form or to the substance of the teaching. The tenor of the immediate context (ver. 19, contrast uwpia, ver. 18) does not seem to warrant an exclusive refer- ence to the former (comp. De Wette in loc.), but the mode of expression (év copia Adyov) and general purport of this portion of the Epistle (see Calvin im loc.) seem certainly to justify our deeming this to be the primary and principal reference ; so rightly Theodorus-Mops.(KaAdretla), Theodoret (evyAwrria,), and appy. the great majority of the Greek com- mentators. It need hardly be said that the expression gopia Adyou is not to be confused with Adyos coptas (Grot., comparing 2 Pet. i. 16): the gop¢ia has the emphatic position, and is prominently specified as, so to speak, the element appertaining “~ - to the Adyos in which the preaching was not to exist. On such forms of expression, comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. A tva py «.T.A.) ‘in order that the cross of Christ might not be made void;’ scil. emptied and deprived (Rom. iv. 14) of its proper and inherent efficacy ; purpose of the preceding negative limitation ; «i yap orwpvAla kal Se- vérntt Adywv expauny, ovk by ebelxOn Tov oravpwhéytos 7 Svvauis, Theod. The cross of Christ was the sub- stance and purport of all Apostolical teaching ; if this were put forth év copia Adyou its holy power would become weakened and its heart- reaching energy (comp. Orig. in loc.) perilously impaired. Origen gives a short but good hint to all preachers when he says,—xpela od tocodroy Adyou bcov dSuvduews (Cram. Caten. p- 19). 18. & Adyos yap «.7.A.] ‘ For the word (preaching) of the cross,’— not so much the ‘ narratio,’ Grot., or the ‘report concerning,’ Barrow, (Creed, Serm. 25), as, more pre- cisely (comp. evayyeA(Cea@at, ver. 17), the ‘preaching and teaching,’ ‘ pre- dicatio de Christo crucifixo,’ Beza; confirmation of the preceding de- finition of purpose va wh «.7.A. if the cross of Christ, the substance of Apostolical preaching, had no vital power of which, under the above- named circumstances, it would run the risk of being emptied, the teach- ing of the cross would not be what experience shows it to be (comp. De W.) both to the amoAAvmevo: and ow(duevor. The genitival relation is slightly doubtful: rod oravpod may be regarded as implying the ethical content, ‘the teaching of which the Es 1S 3 21 e A A a A > 4, 4 3 , 0 TOV GTaVpOU Tols mev arrohhupEvols pwpia éaTiv, . A Q , Cee , AP 8 , Tots d€ gwlopévors Hutv Svvapis Oeod éoriv. substance and purport is, &c.’ (see notes on ch. xii. 8, and on 1 Thess. ii. 5), or, more simply, as an ordi- nary gen. objecti, Td wep) rod cravpod Knpuvyua, Theod., sim. Phot.; see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7. On the emphasizing article before tod oravpod (Tit. ii. 10, al.) see Winer, G7. § 20. I, and comp, Kiihner, Gr. § 463. 3. Toig &troAAvpEvots] ‘to those that are perishing,’ to those that are on the broad way leading to eternal amérea; see 2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3, 2 Thess. ii. 10, and notes im loc. The dative is not so much a dat. judicii (De Wette ; voutCovres, Chrys.), as of interest (‘commodi’ or ‘in- commodi’ as the case may be); the teaching not only seemed but proved to be (‘rem denotavit ex effectu,’ Grot.), both to the one class and to the other, what the Apostle here specifies; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 4, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 5, compared with § 48.3.3. The two classes are roughly, but with substantial cor- rectness, defined by Theodoret (ard Tov TéAOUS TAS TpoTnyopias TiHEis), the former as of amiotovyres, the latter as of mucrevoyvres. The one class is, by faith, on the way to eternal life; the other, owing to deepening un- belief, is on the way to eternal death; comp. John iii. 18. The tense hag thus, not its ethical, but its simple temporal force: it does not here mark that which is sure to happen (Wilke, Rhet. 1. 10) but simply that which is taking place at the time specified ; see the present writer’s Broad and Narrow Way, p. 44, and comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 88, Vol. u.p. 8, § 96, p. 54 (Transl.). On the relation between divine and ye 19 human activity in the work of sal- vation, see the lucid comments of Dorner, Chr. Theol. § 130. 2, 3, Vol. tv. p. 183 sq. (Transl.), pwpla] ‘folly,’ something that not only seems but proves to be to them,—to their inner life and con- science,—foolish, weak (comp. ver. 25), and unsatisfying; pwwpla re rab droyia, Plato, Hpin. p. 983 & (cited by Meyer): the gospel is hid from them in its real saving significance ; see 2 Cor. iv. 3, and comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 88, Vol. um. p. 10 (Transl.). The reason why it proves so is specified ver. 22. *Apiv] not placed after tots cw(o- Hevois to modify the sharpness of the contrast that might otherwise have seemed to exist between the eis and the dmoAAvupévois, but to leave the emphasis resting where it is designed to rest, and to preserve the real antithesis between the parti- ciples in all its distinctness. Sivapts Ocod] ‘the power of God’ (article elided by the predicative eotiv, comp. Green, Gramm. of N.T. Pp. 35; Middleton, Gr. Art. 3. 3. 2, and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 3); not merely ‘illud im quo Deus vim de- clarat,’ Beza (comp. Grot., Meyer) but, as in Rom. i. 16, the power directly and essentially. The Adyos Tov oravpov is in itself the power of God ; it not only includes the power, but itself is that power to every believing soul; comp. Severian im loc. 19. yéypamrat ydp}] confirma- tion from Scripture, not of the asser- tion ov« ev copia Adyov (Alf.), but of the truth of the preceding state- ment; elra de'kvvci Td THs Mpoppyjgews apevdes, Theodoret. The declaration 22 IIPOZ KOPINSIOYS ITPOTH. > lal ‘ lal ypantat yap “Atoh@ THY codpiav TaV Gopar, Kal THY 20 atveow TOV cuVEeTaV aDeTHTW. TOD Gopds; TOD ypappareds ; mov auvlytntys Tov aidvos TovTov ; that the preaching of the Cross is verily the 5vvauis Ocod is substanti- ated by God’s own prophesied ex- emplification of that power. The passage is from Isaiah xxix. 14, mainly according to the LXX (a6e- thow substituted for xpiWw, as ex- pressing more distinctly and imme- diately the divine agency). What is there said more especially of God’s — dealings with reference to Israel is universally true of all His dealings . with men, and rightly so cited by the Apostle; see the good comments of Hofmann in loc. TV codlav Tév codGy, Kal Tv K.T.A.] ‘the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the understanding ones.’ On the distinction between copla (Kowas ardvtwy udOnors, Suid.), and giveois (rept ay amophoeey by vts, Aristotle), see notes on Col. i. 9; and on 4@erety (‘ad nihilum redi- gere,’ Vatabl.) notes on Gal. ii. 21. 20. tod caodds] ‘where is the wise man ?’ not necessarily, ‘a wise man’ (Copt., Ewald, al.), the article being practically elided by the nega- tive character of the sentence: abrupt question (katapopixdrepoy KéxpynTat tois Adyots, Chrys.),—based on the foregoing quotation,—implying the complete exclusion from all con- nexion with the subject involved in what precedes (salvation by the preaching of the Cross; tis... écwoe Kal Thy GAjOeay eyvmpicey ; ovK éorw ovdels, Chrys.) of those here specified ; comp. ch. xv. 55, Rom. iii. 27: Grotius is appy. right in deem- ing these clauses a reminiscence of Isaiah “xxxiii. 18, rod ciow of ypap- farikol; wod eiow of cupBovadevortes ; K.7.A.; comp. ib. xix. 12, The as- sumption of Ewald (Comm. p. 136) that the words are a quotation from some lost work seems wholly un- called for. Whether there is any national distinction hinted at in the substantives, or whether codbs is general and ypauyarebs and ouv(nr. special, but not national, exemplifi- cations (comp. Hofm.), is perhaps doubtful. The subsequent national references (ver. 22 sq.) seem rather in favour of the former, and also their order, the reference of ypamp. being to the Jew, and of ovy¢nr. to the Greek (comp. Acts ix. 29),—not of copds to the Greek and ypaup. to the Jew (Chrys., Theod.), while copds precedes as a general term: so De Wette, Meyer, and most modern commentators. ovvintrntiHs] ‘ disputer ;’ not simply ‘ conquisitor,’ Vulg., Copt., Goth. (sdkareis), Arm., but, in accordance with the prevail- ing use both of the verb (Mark viii. 11, ix. 14, Luke xxiv. 15, Acts vi. 9, ix. 29), and the substantive (Acts xv. 7; XxXvill. 29 is doubtful) in the N.T., ‘disputator,’ Syr., Erasm., al.,—the argumentative skill of the Gentile (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 102. a) being that to which the Apostle is par- ticularly pointing. The substantive is only found here and in Ignat. Eph. cap. 18,—an adaptation of this passage. Tov alavos rovrov] ‘of this world,’ ‘of this present evil age’ (comp. notes on Eph. ii. 2), to which all such worldly disputants belong, but from and out of which Christians have been taken by the redeeming power of Christ; see Gal. i. 4, and comp. Rom. xii. 2. 12-20; of, 23 coe. S| A c \ N , fal , OvXL E“wpavey 0 Meds THY cGodiay TOV KdcpOV; > \ \ > ~ la aA A 3 ¥ e / e€TeLOn yap €v TH copia TOV Ocod ovk eyvw 6 Kdcpos 21 20. kéouov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very distinctly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rovrou, The genitive is to be referred to all the preceding substantives, being that which specially qualifies and characterizes them. ovxd éudpavev «.t.d.] ‘Did not God make foolish;’ not merely, show and prove it to be such (“wpa edetev ovoay, Chrys.), but, with some reference to the judicial power of God, render it and make it such, ‘stultificavit,’ Erasm.; comp. Rom. i. 22. The suffix x: probably strength- ens the form of the negative as in vaixt, #xt; Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1. Tov Ké6cp0v] ‘of the world,’ t.e. of the profane non-Christian world; kéoqmos, without any adjunct, having frequently in the N. T. (more esp. in St John) this or some similar shade of ethical meaning; see Cremer, Worterb. s.v. p. 308, notes on Gal. iv. 3, and comp. Reuss, T’héol, Chreét. v. 18, Vol. 11. p. 208, note. 21. éqet8H yap] ‘ For since’ or ‘seeing that;’ confirmatory explana- tion of the foregoing @cbs x.7.A., the former clause speci- fying the reason, the latter the manner of the pwpaivey. On the force of éreidi) (‘that of éel quali- fied by 67,’ Klotz) see notes on Phil. ii. 26, and comp. Hartung Partik. Vol. 1. p. 259. The ydp is appy. here used more in its explan- atory, than in its directly confirma- tory force; the Apostle explains the foregoing words, but also slightly proves the wisdom of the act speci- fied. On this mixed force of the particle, see Kiihner, Gr. § 544, I, notes on Gal. iy. 22, and on 1 Thess. > / c Euw@pavey Oo ii. 1, and, generally, on the uses of the particle, the good dissertation of Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 234 sq. év TH codpta Tod Ccod] ‘in the wisdom of God ;’ not that, owing to or by which (Riick.; comp. Alf.),—for vy when thus used in reference to agency or instrumentality necessarily marks the substantive with which it is associated as that which is em- ployed by the agent (see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18), but the sphere in which the ov« éyyw was manifested ; see Hofm. im loc. Even in the clear light of that copia, as evinced and displayed by God’s works (7 5:4 ray épywv pawouevn, Chrys., Theod.; ‘sapientiam relucentem in opificio mundi,’ Est.) the world (Jew and Gen- tile alike, though in different degrees) failed to arrive at the knowledge of God; comp. Acts xiv. 17, Rom. i. 19. De Wette and others include in the copia the revelation of God as made to the Jews in the O. T., as well as the revelation in the natural world to the Gentiles, on the ground that kéomos must include both. This, however, as Neander rightly observes, seems out of harmony with the context. The statement is broad and general; in the light that God vouchsafed (‘in media luce,’ Caly.), though sufficient for the purpose, man failed to come to the knowledge of his maker: comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 69. (a), (b), Vol. 1. p. 354 sq. (Transl.), and on the general subject of heathenism and its consciousness of God, the admirable comments of Dorner, Chr. Doctr. §$ 65; 66, Vol. 24 IIPOS KOPINOIOYS TMPOTH. Sua THs codias Tov Ocdv, edddcnoer 6 Ocds dua THS pwplas TOD KyNpvypaTos THaaL TOvS T- 22 otevovtas. eed?) kal Iovdator onpeta airovow Kat 22. onucia] so Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., onpetov, 1. p. 235 sqq (Transl.). Sia Tis godtas] ‘by means of its wisdom ;’ means, which when used led only to the od éyyw. The means failed to secure the desired end; see Winer, Gr. § 47. i. The copla here, it need hardly be said, has a different meaning to that which it has just above, the subjects to which the copla appertains being so widely different. evSdnnoev & Ocds] ‘ God was pleased,’ ‘ placuit Deo,’ Vulg.; comp. Luke x. 41, and on the use and four constructions (with évy and dat.,—eis and accus.,— simple accus.,—and, as here, infin.) of the late, and probably Macedonian- Greek, verb evdoxeziv, notes on Col. i. 19, and Fritz. Rom. x. 1. Sa TAS pwplas KnpvyL.aTos | ‘through the foolishness of preach- ing,’ the foolishness (odx) rijs ovons GAAG THs elvat doxavons, Orig.) which was the substance and chief element of the preaching; xnpiyparos being, not a gen. of apposition (De Wette, Alf., comp. Hofm.), but a form of the possessive genitive (gen. conti- mentis), as in the expression tis aAnbelas tod evaryyeAlov, Col. i. 5; where see note. These genitives, of what perhaps may be inclusively. termed genitives of inner reference, are foundin the N. T. under yarious, but very commonly self-explanatory, forms: see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 30. 2.8. The khpvyua, as the termina- tion plainly shows, ‘is the matter preached’ (Hooker),—the message, not the delivery of it: in 2 Tim. iv. 17, Tit. i. 3, sometimes cited as ex- Tov ceptions, the meaning seems to be substantially the same. TovS miorevovtTas| ‘them that believe ;’ slightly emphatic, and explanatory of the seeming enigma: the objects of the saving eidoxla were not the col- lective members of a kéopuos which relied on its own fruitless wisdom, but those out of it who put their trust in the gospel, and simply believe that which God was pleased to reveal; see the good comments of Chrys. im loc. on reasoning and faith, and for a sermon on the whole verse, Sher- lock, Works, Vol. 1. p. 93 sqq. (ed. Hughes). The aorist c@om is appy. due to the law of parity of tenses (Winer, Gr. § 44. 7); it makes an act immediately dependent on and due to the evdoxia (‘quod statim et e vestigio fit, ideoque etiam certo futurum est,’ Stallb. Plato, Huthyd. p- 140), but is silent as to the dura- tion of the action; comp. Kvriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 6. 9. 22. éaerdy] ‘ Since,’ or ‘ Seeing that ;’ explanatory elucidation of the first statement in the preceding verse év TH copig—rdy Oedy, the following verse elucidating the second statement, Hofmann, who has very carefully considered the sequence of thought in the some- what difficult connexion of this passage, appears to regard this clause as elucidating the second member of the foregoing verse €v5.—o@aat Tovs morevovras, and especially the limi- tation involved in the slightly em- The drift of the verse would then be that Jews phatic rods morevovtas. Be ey 33 25 "EXAnves codiav Cnrodow: jets Sé€ Knpvooope 23 Xpictov éeotavpwpevoy, “Iovdaious péev oKdvdadov and Greeks, the two component parts of the xéonos, when invited to accept the xjpuyua asked respectively for something that might convince them, whether miracles or rhetori- cal logic: see Chrys.in loc. This is plausible, but not in true harmony with the tenor of the passage: the Apostle does not here appear to be, as often, substantiating each clause as he passes on, but rather making broad and general statements which he elucidates by an appeal to actual facts and circumstances: ‘non ar- gumentatur Apostolus, sed jam dicta explicat,’ Grot. Kal *lovSator k.7.A.] ‘ both Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek after wisdom; ’ the one have such a practical 4- yveo'a of the God they worship, that eyen when His Son was appealing to them, they ask for signs and wonders attesting the truth of His person and mission (comp. Matth. xvi. 4, John iv. 48); the other, with a similar éyvwoia, refuse to accept what is not intellectually brought home to them. On the connexion kal—xal, here serving to place both parties practically on the same level, . as both alike evincing their ayvwoia, though the manner in which they do it is different, see Winer, Gr. Sesaa4, Kubner, Gr, § 522: 1, Baumlein, Partik. p. 148, and comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. De Wette compares Mark ix. 13, but, as the order of the words appears to indi- cate, not correctly: the first cal is there ascensiye, the second copula- tive. ?lovSator— “EdAnves] without the article; not, ‘the Jews,...the Greeks,’ Copt., Auth., viewed as communities of which every member acted as speci- fied (Middleton, Art. 111. 2. 2), but, ‘Jews,’ ... ‘Greeks’ as general classes without special reference to the individuals composing them; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 30. 3. 6 sq. 23. hwets S€] ‘While we;’ appended clause (still partially under the vineulum of the é7eid/), con- trasting the 7me?s and their prin- ciples of feeling and action with the two classes and their characterizing principles just specified in the pre- ceding verse; 7meis 5€ ayvt) rovTwy Ti Aéyouev ; Chrys. Meyer makes this verse the distinct apodosis (ére:dy— dé) to ver. 22. This is grammati- cally admissible (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p. 371, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 184), but exegetically un- satisfactory : Apostolic preaching of Christ crucified did not depend as a sort of logical consequence on what preceded, but is specified as forming a clear and instructive contrast to it ; ‘opponit Apostolus predicationem Christi crucifixi sapientie sscu- lari,’ Est., see Hofmann in loc. éotavpwpevoyv] ‘as crucified ;’ 80 the very reverse of a displayer of signs, or founder of a system of philosophy. To the Jews a Xpiorbs eoTaup, Was a okavdaAor, ‘ quia crucis opprobrium eos turbavit et impedi- vit,’ Est., comp. Gal. v. 11: to the Gentiles, ‘mera stultitia erat homi- enem crucifixum aut predicare aut credere mundi salvatorem,’ Estius. On the crdvdadoy of Christ crucified to the Jews, see the reff. and com- ments of Wordsw. in loc. The miracles of our Lord’s ministry were to them negatived by his crucifixion : the crucified One could not be their Messiah; comp. Matth. xxvii. 42, 63 sqq. This verse forms the text 26 IPOS KOPINSEIOY> IIPOTH. 24 €Overw Sé pwpiar, adtots Sé Tots KyTOols, Iovdaiors te kal "E\\now, Xprorov Ocod Sivapw Kat Ocovd 25 oodiav. Oru TO pwpov Tod Ocod coddtepov TaV 23. €Overw)] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority; Rec. “EAAna. for the first discourse of Abp. Magee, Works, Vol. 1. 1. 24. attrots §S& Tots KAnTois] ‘but to them the called,’ ‘ ipsis autem vocatis,’ Vulg.; the avrois marking off, as it were, those alluded to from the classes to which they nationally belonged, but with which they had no personal and spiritual affinities; ‘es verstiirkt den Begriff der Persénlichkeit,’ Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 10. a. p. 287; see also Kiihner, Gr. § 468.2. It may be observed that the Apostle does not here use jmiv (which perhaps, at first sight, might have seemed more natural), owing to the preceding knpicoouer, which must obviously be supplied in the present verse. *lov&. te kal ”“EAX.] ‘ both Jews and Greeks ;’ not only the former but the latter, the te—xal marking the addi- tion of the’EAA. to the ’Iov5. already specified, and the gracious extension of the divine xAjors to those afar off as well as to those nigh. On te—xal (closest form of copulative connex- ion), see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4, Kiih- ner, Gr. § 522. 2, and the brief but exact comments of Donaldson, Gr. § 549 sq. Xpiotdv «.7.A.] ‘Christ, God’s power and God’s wisdom ;’ explanatory apposi- tion to the preceding Xpiordy éoraup- wuévoy, the repetition of Xpiorby not being so much by way either of solemn (Alf.), or of triumphant utterance (Mey.), as designed still more sharply and clearly to identify Him that was to the Jews a cxdy- dadov and to the Greeks a pwpla, with Him that was to the called God’s power and God’s wisdom. To the called Christ crucified was both all that the Jew asked for, —God’s power in its truest conception (contrast ver. 22), and all that the Greek sought after,—God’s wisdom in its purest manifestation: Sivapmw ov Thy OedTHTAa TOV povoyevods mpoonydpevoey 6 Oetos amdaToAos, GAAG 7d mepl Tov oTavpod Khpvyya. Theod. 25. 67. «.7.A.j Reason for the foregoing appositional predication, Xpiorby Ocod x.7.A., the Oeod codlay being substantiated by the first clause, the Qcod @tvauw by the second. Augustine has a few com- ments on this verse, de Doctr. Chr. een eo Td pwpdv Tod Ocod] ‘ the foolishness of God,’ or, a little more exactly, the foolish dealing of God, ‘quod stultum est,’ Vulg., the foolish thing (kara rhy tav avonrwy ddéfav, Theod.), which comes from and is brought about by God,—the gen. being appy. a_gen. of the ‘ originating cause’ (see notes on Col. i. 23, and on 1 Thess. i. 6), and the reference being both here and in the following clause to Christ’s atoning death on the cross; mepl TOU aTavpod A€ywy Td pwpdy Kal 7d aobevés, Chrys, Td uwpdy is here not simply equivalent to the ab- stract uwpia (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 43. 27; Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 27. 2; comp. Rom. ii. 4), but seems chosen as more suggestively marking the specific and concrete fact (Xpiordy éoravpwuevov) which the Apostle has in his thoughts; see Meyer im loc., copiay Kah f. 23 Oa ee 27 Lal Lal 5 avOpdtav é€otiv, Kai 76 aobevés TOV Oeovd toyxv- potepov Tav avOparwr. Consider your call- ing; how God has Bhérete yap THv K\yjow var, a- 26 chosen the foolish and weak things of the earth that all glorying should bein Him. 25. avOpdrav 2") So Tisch., Treg., Weste. and Hort, on preponderat- ing authority, enhanced by internal considerations arising from the differ- ently assigned position of éoriv: Rec., Lachm., Rev., add éotiv. note. Trav avOpdtrev] ‘than men are ;’ not here, by any ‘comparatio compendiaria,’ for rod ‘gopod Tay avOpdérwy (Grot.; so De Wette, Maier, al.), but simply with inclusive reference to men viewed as a totality (wavtwy Tay avOpdérar, Chrys.; comp. Syr. [2 ray ayvép.], ‘filiis hominis’), and perhaps with some faintly implied depreciatory tinge; see Bernhardy, Synt. 1. 5, p.61. To avoid this seeming logical difficulty of a comparison between things and persons, Hofmann makes the preceding 7d pwpdy Tod Ocod a kind of periphrasis for ‘God in His (seeming) foolishness,’ and com- pares Rom.i. 19, li. 4, vill. 3, and 2 Cor. iv.17. This, however, seems plainly inadmissible, Ist, as not properly substantiated by the exx. cited, and 2dly, as not consistent with the subordinated relation in which (in such cases) the gen. appears commonly to stand to the governing noun; see esp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 225, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 34.3. The difficulty is more apparent than real, as the plural seems to carry with it so much of a collective, and thus partially abstract, reference, as to be very nearly equivalent to ‘men and all their works ;? comp. Neander in loc. Td Gabevés TOD Ocod] ‘the weakness of God,’ or, as above, the weak dealing of God, ‘quod infrmum est,’ Vulg. [Clarom. omits the ‘quod’ and ‘ est ’]; in reference to the seeming weakness (mpbs thy exelyny brdAnuw, Orig.) of the agency by which God was pleased to save sinners and redeem the world; kal Tovto de Stvauis Tov oikovouyjoayTos kal katopOdcaytos ev TS pndevi od- cayTos Tovs avOpmmous, Kal eis Ty eis avtoy miotiw awyaydyvtos, Severian in loc. (Cram. Caten.). 26-31. Conjirmation of the fore- going by a reference to the worldly position of the called. 26. BaAéaetre yap] ‘For con- sider ;’ émioxépacbe, Chrys. ; im- perative, ch. x. 18, Phil. iii. 2: so rightly Vulg., Syr., Copt., Aith., the confirmatory appeal to experience obviously requiring the more em- phatic imperative; kal rotrov pdp- Tupas avtovs Kade?, Chrys. The objection of Erasm., repeated also by Beza, ‘nec enim admonet ut videant quod sciebant, sed quod perspicuum erat trahit in argu- mentum,’ is really of no force. The yap (which Beza and Beng. some- what singularly urge as in favour of the indic.) seems clearly to refer to the verse immediately, not to the preceding group of verses (De Wette) : the general statement (ver. 27) is now confirmed by the special in- stance. Tiv KAjoLY Ody] ‘your calling ;’ not ‘ your condition of life’ (‘vite genus’), Olsh., but, in accordance with the regular usage 28 IIPOZ KOPINSIOY2 IIPOTH. Sedol, Ste od Toddol Godol Kata odpKa, ov Toot , > A > - 3 ‘ ‘ ‘ A d 27 Suvaroi, ov wohhol evyeveis* dha TA LwOpaTOd Kdop.oU of the word in the N. T. (ch. vii. 20 forms no exception; see notes in loc.), simply ‘ your calling,’ scil. by God,—here with reference to the individuals who received it, ob yap advoy BidacKdAous ididras GAA Kal mabnras émeAétato TowbTovs, Chrys. The metonymy of Beza 2, ‘ vocatio’ pro ‘vocatis’ is unnecessary, and indeed untenable; comp. Wilke, Rhet. D233. bv] ‘that,’ intro- ducing the objective sentence de- pendent on the foregoing BAémete, and specifying appositionally what it was, in reference to this calling, that they were to consider and to observe; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 584, and Kriiger, Sprachlehre, § 56. 7. 12; codol kata odpKa] ‘wise according to the flesh ;’ scil. kata Tov tapdyta Bloy, Kata Thy éfw0ev maldevow, Chrys.; or perhaps better and more inclusively, ‘ac- cording to all that is not imparted by the Spirit ;’ of uév eiot cool kara odpka, of 5€ Kara Ivedua, Orig.; see Est. i loc., and comp. copla caprixh, 2 Cor. i. 12, on the true meaning of odpé (‘the whole of man standing in opposition to the Spirit,’ Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 73, Vol. 1. p. 319; ‘that which is characteristic of the earthly ap SOE Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 68 b, Vol. 1. p. 343), and the lateht antithesis (in passages like the present) which it commonly involyes to Td Tvevua, see notes and reff. on Gal. v. 16, and comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 5. 6, p. 439, (Transl.), Plitt, Evang. Glawbensl. § 33, Vol. 1. p. 280 sq. It is doubtful whether (a) we are to re- gard gogol «.7.A. as a@ predicate to the preceding ob woAAoi, ‘not many are wise &c.,’ Meyer, De Wette, al., or whether (8) we are to supply exAnonoay, suggested by the pre- ceding kAjow, and only not in- serted because the change to the following éteAétaro was already emerging from the inspired Apostle’s thoughts. The extreme flatness of (a), and the absence of the almost necessary buagy (in such a case) after moAAol, may perhaps rightly incline us to (8); so appy. Gicum. év THKAHGE TAvTY Kal TH wlaTeEL OVK RABOV modAol copoi. The Apostle passes page instinctively from the passive into the active form of sentence, and from the idea of the more re- stricted kAjors to that of the wholly unconditioned éxAoyf (1 Thess. i. 4), as thereby setting forth more fully and clearly (in harmony with the context) the wisdom and power of God. The «Ajois was in a certain sense dependent on the agency of man, the éxAoyi depended on God alone ; comp. Hofmann 7 loc. Suvarol] ‘mighty,’ ‘in dignitatibus positi,’ Grot. It is not necessary to supply kara odpxa (Est.), duvards needing no qualifying term. evyevets] ‘noble,’ scil. ‘genere nobiles, quales folim]) Corinthi Cypselide et SBacchiade,’ Grot.; comp. Luke xix.12. The Corinth of the Apostle’s time had ceased to be the Corinth of the past; its old races had been destroyed (Pausanias, Grac. Deser. cap. 118, ed. Siebel.) and supplied in the time of Julius Cesar by Romans, mainly of freed- man-extraction Gare evbepikod yévous mAelorous, Strabo, Geogr, vii. 6. 63, ed. Kramer) ; see Finlay, Hist. of Gr. Vol. 1. p. 66 sq. 27. GAAG TA pwpa TOD KdcpLoV] ‘but the foolish things of the world; (Tov B27 oe. 29 > , ec rd sd , ‘ , 4 A e€eheEato 6 Ocds, iva kaTaicyvryn TOds coors, Kal Ta > lal la) / >? / c / J , acbevy Tov Kdapov e€ehéEaTo 6 Ocds, iva Kataoyvvy ee | , \ Nas lal “A / ‘ ‘ > Ta ioyupa, Kal TA wyevh TOV KOopOoU Kal TA eEove- 28 td > a c zg MS ‘ »” ” \ » vypeva e€e\eEato 6 Oeds, Ta py) OVTA, Wa TA OvTA 27. Karaoxivy Tors copovs] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., robs copods narucxdbyy, but only with cursive mss. AFG al. omit (accidentally ?) tva—é Oeds (ver. 28). 28. 7a uh bvta] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., on appy. preponderating authority: Rec., Rev. [Westc. and Hort], prefix kat. Decision is here very difficult, as «at has critically important support. regularly contrasted statement on the positive side, and in a more inclusive form, of what God was pleased to choose,—the neuter mark- ing the general category (Winer, Gr. § 27. 5; comp. notes on Gal. iii. 22), and the genitive that to which the 7a «wpa appertained and belonged (‘que stulta sunt in mundo,’ Beza), —and out of which they were chosen ; comp. John xv. 19. To take tov Kogmou as a gen. judicit (ws mpbs Toy Kécpoy, Orig.; Kata Tiy TOY avOparwy ddéav, Theodoret, al.) weakens the whole force of the declaration: what God was pleased to choose was really pwpdv, aodevés, and wyeves. é&cAéEato] ‘chosen out,’ made éx- Aextol; comp. Eph. i. 4, 2; Thess. li. 13. The studied repetition of the efeActatro 6 Oeds with each of the three clauses marks the deliberate nature of the divine choice, and has, as Meyer observes, a kind of trium- phant emphasis. tva KaTatoxtvy K.T.A.] ‘that He might put the wise to shame ;’ purpose of the exroy7. The choice of the foolish rather than the wise was a veritable putting to shame of the wise; peyi- oT] TOY copay aicxiyn Tapa idiwTav qtT400a, Gicumenius. The Apostle passes in this clause into the masc. (rovs copovs), as thus marking the practically mase. reference of the contrasted ra pwpd Tod Kécmov, but again reverts to the neuter as thus passing more easily into the climactic 7a wh Ovra of the last clause. On the general subject suggested by this verse (faith in relation to religion), see Newman, Univ. Serm. p. 194. 28. Ta dyevi TOD Kécpov] ‘the base things of the world;’ direct and more immediate antithesis to the foregoing evyeveis, but enhanced by the following, efov@evnuéva, and still more by the concluding and climactic Ta uy éyra. Ta py SvtTa) ‘ (yea) things that are not,’ counted and conceived of as not existing (0:4 rHv wodAhy ovdeverar, Chrys.), or perhaps better as Hof- mann, ‘not really but only con- ceivably existing,’ the pi giving its usual subjective tinge; see Winer, Gr. § 55.5, but remember that as uy with the participle is the more usual Hel- lenic usage, it cannot always safely be pressed ; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 15. Origen (Cramer, Cat.) refers the Ta “mH dvra to all the preceding neuters pwpd, acbevn, ayevij, and etovJevnueva, but, as the very struc- ture of the clauses seems to show, not correctly: the studiously un- connected 7&4 ph dvra obviously stands simply in apposition and climax to the two adjectives which precede. Ta 5vTa] ‘which are,’ exist, and are really so to be recognized. Meyer very appo- 30 IPOS KOPINOIOYS TPOTH. ‘ la A“ 29 KaTapynon’ OTwS p) Kavynjonta Taca capt évi- A“ “ A A “A 30 mov Tov Ocov. e€& avTov dé tpels Eore ev XpioTae 29. evémov tod @cod] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority ; Rec., évémoy abrod. sitely quotes Pflugk on Eurip. Hee. 284,—‘ ipsum verbum elya: eam vim habet ut significet iv aliquo numero esse, rebus secundis florere.’ Kkatapyyon) ‘bring to nought;’ the stronger and more appropriate word katapyhon (katapy. axuvpacat, Hesych.) naturally taking the place of karaicxtvy in the present climac- tic clause. Katapyeivy (as remarked on Gal. v. 4) is a favourite word with the Apostle, by whom it is used 25 times, with several and varying shades of meaning. It oc- curs Luke xiii. 7, and Heb. ii. 14, but only 4 times in the LXX (Ezra iv. 21, 23, v. 5, vi. 8) and rarely in common Greek. 29. Smws K.7.A.] ‘in order that no flesh should glory ;’ final clause, gathering up the three preceding and more limited wa-clauses into one general enunciation of ultimate purpose. On the essential meaning of dmws (here clearly to be recog- nized), and its distinction from iva, see notes on 2 Thess. i. 12. a} KavxX. waca odpé] ‘ Hebrais- tic form of expression; the correct analysis of which seems to be érws masa capt uh kavx., the negation being closely united with the verb, and (so to speak) non-boasting being predicated of all flesh; see Winer, Gr. § 26.1, and notes and reff. on Gal. ii. 16. Add also Fritz. Dissert. in 2 Cor. p. 24 sq. évémiov Tod Ocod] ‘ before God,’ ‘in conspectu,’ Vulg.,—standing, as it were, in His holy presence; comp. évariov tav avOpdmrwv, Luke xvi. 15, and, with very distinct local refer- ence, Luke i. 17. The expression occurs very frequently in the N. T.; the nearly synonymous évayrloy rob ©cod only once, Luke xxiv. 19; comp. Luke i. 8. 30. €€ adrod 8 K7.A.] ‘ But (to pass to what may indeed warrant Christian boasting) it is of Him that ye are in (in vital union with) Christ Jesus ;’ the verse not merely exhibiting on the positive side what had been previously exhibited on the negative (De Wette), but further, and by way of contrast, in- troducing the real ground and prin- ciples of the true xavxnots specified in ver. 31; see Hofmann i loc. The e& airov, as its position clearly shows, is emphatic, and serves to mark, not their spiritual origin (réxva cod Theoph.; so also Chrys., Theod., and several modern expositors : comp. Gal. iii. 7), but, as the general tenor of the context (God’s sovereign power and wisdom) and the subsequent amd @cod seem both to suggest,—the causal source (see Winer, Gr. § 47, b.), of their union in Christ. The éeoréis thus not strongly predicative, and in effect isolated (watSes abtod éoré, Sia Tod Xpior00 TovTo yevduevoi,Chrys.), but as the familiar eva: ev Xp. (Rom. xvi. 11, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. i. 22; comp. Rom. xvi. 7), and the insertion of buezs (as drawing rather to itself the emphasis) both seem to suggest, in close union with ev Xpiorg. On the formula elvat év Xp., see Plitt, Hvang. Glau- bensl. § 55, Vol. um. p. 77, and comp. Hooker, Sevm. m1. Vol. mt. p- 763 (ed. Keble). eyeveode, a ate T.“39; /86,; ‘94 dl Inood, bs €yeryOn codia jp ard Ocod, Sixarcoobvy TE Kal aylacmos Kal amoh’Tpwars, wa Kalas yé- 31 30. copia nuiv] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., nuiv copla. bs éyevniOn «.7.A.] ‘who became wisdom to us from God,’ scil. displayed to us God’s wisdom (copia yeyover cis Oeoyvwolay, Sever. ; comp. Col. ii. 3) in His whole mani- festation, His whole life and works; more exact specification of the mercy and grace involved in the preceding declaration (rd Sapirés evderxyduevos Tis Swpeas, Chrys.), the ds having a partially explanatory and slightly argumentative force (see notes on Col. i. 18, and comp. Col. i. 25, ii. 10, 1 Tim. ii. 4, al.), and the ard cod (dependent, as the order shows, on éyev79) echoing the preceding é avrov, and pointing to God as the ultimate origin of the gracious work- ing: see Kiihner, Gr. § 430, where this distinction between ard and éx is briefly but accurately specified ; comp., however, notes on 1 Thess. ii. 6. On the passive form éyevj@nre, see notes on Eph. iii. 7. SikaLtootvn Te Kal Gytacpwds] ‘ both righteousness and sanctification,’ — where righteousness, there sanctifi- cation,—the re kal binding the two present substantives closely together (Hofmann very improbably connects dikatoc. with copia), and making them parts of a common predication ; see esp. Donalds. Cratyl.§ 189,195, Wilke, Rhet. § 43, p. 160, and the copious list of exx. there collected, Winer Gr. § 53. 4, p. 389, and, for the distinction between this expression and kal—xai, notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. The two substantives thus—by their theological affinity—closely associ- ated, serve, with the dmoA’tpwors that follows, to illustrate and exem- plify the foregoing copia. Our Lord, the Apostle says, became to us wisdom, yea verily, both righteous- ness and sanctification,—and _ re- demption; righteowsness (comp. Jer. xxxiii. 16), inasmuch as through faith in Him we were made righteous before God by His merits and death (see Rom. iii. 17, and comp. Usteri, Lehrb. um. 1. 1, p. 89); and not only righteousness, but, in close union therewith, sanctification, inasmuch as, by the indwelling of His holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 11), He leads us into abiding holiness and newness of life; comp. Sixaoodvn eis Gyiacudy, Rom. vi. 19, and see Messner, Lehre d. Apost. p. 239. On this text, see Butler (W. A.) Serm. 1. Vol. 1. p- I sq., and the brief but clear sum- mary of Hooker, Serm. 1. 2; and on the two united aspects of the work of Christ, see Messner, Lehre d. Apost. 1. c.; compare also Reuss, Théol. Chrét. v. 14, Vol. 1. p. 144, 174. Kal GroAUTpwots | ‘ and (a third particular being added to the two closely associated fore- going particulars; comp. Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 98 sq.) redemp- tion;’ not merely from past sins and present sufferings (comp. Heb. ii. 15, I Pet. i. 17), but also, with a more inclusive reference to the final and complete redemption (TeAclay amad- Aaynv, Theoph.), from sin, Satan, and death eternal; comp. Rom. viii. 23, and notes on Hph.i. 14. The com- ment of Calvin is just and pertinent, ‘redemptio primum Christi donum est quod inchoatur in nobis, et ultimum perficitur.’ On this verse 32 TPOS KOPINEIOYS MPOTH. ypamtat ‘O kavydpevos ev Kupiw xa Kaya €h0av mpods tpas, adedpot Hr\Oov od Kal” srepoynv ddyov words of human wisdom IL. as setting forth a summary of Christian privileges, see Leighton, Works, Vol. 1. p. 347 sqq. 31. tva Kkabds yéypatrat] ‘in order that, as it is written;’ final purpose of God in thus graciously being the originating cause of the union with Christ, and of the bless- ings that flow from it: ‘En finis, cur omnia nobis largiatur Deus in Christo, nempe ut ne quid arrogemus nobis, sed illi omnia deferamus,’ Calv. The quotation that follows is a free and shortened citation of Jer. 1x.124. 6 kavxdpmevos k-T.A.] ‘ He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord;’ not, in Christ (Kup‘», Riick.), nor even with any latent reference to Him (Stanl.), but, as the whole context (consider ef avtod, amb @cov) evidently requires, in God. The construction is unsyntactic, and probably studiously so; the impera- tival form being that of the original passage, and also more telling and forcible; comp. ch. ii. 9, Rom. xv. 3, and see Winer, Gr. § 64.7.b. Wordsw. notices that the same text is used by Clement (Hp. i. 13) asa ‘ brief sententious antidote’ against the vainglory and worldly wisdom of this Corinthian Church. A short sermon on this text will be found in Augustine, Serm. o1x. Vol. vi. p. 70 (ed. Bened.). II. 1—5. The accordance of the Apostle’s preaching with the nature of the Gospel as above specified. I. Kaya] ‘ And I too,’ in accordance with the precept, and as a true preacher of Christ crucified (ch. i. 23); the introductory xal being not only connective but emphasizing, and appy. here requiring in English the fuller translation given above: comp. Copt., Aith., and see Biumlein, Partik. ral, 2,p.150 sq. His coming to Corinth (ver. 1-2), and his abode there (3-5), alike exemplified the accordance of his practice with the principles he had enunciated (ch. i. 17-31); comp. Hofm. in loc. &SeAdpol] not without force: maAw 7) TaY GbdeAdaY TIOyoOW bvOMa KaTa- Acalywy Too Adyou Thy TpaxiTyTA, Chrys. ov Ka’ btrepoxiv k.T.A.] ‘not with excellency (pre- eminence) of speech or wisdom ;’ modal portion of the clause qualify- ing, and, as the very position of the negative seems to imply, to be connected with, not the preceding HAGov (Riick., Hofm.), but the suc- ceeding KatayyéAAwy; so Syr., per- haps Chrys., and the majority of recent expositors. The Apostle did not seek to define the manner of his coming, but the manner of his teaching when he did come; Adyos pointing to the rhetorical, copia to the philosophical, element of the katrayyeAla (Neand.). The objection of Hofm. that od ka@ rep, #.7.A. cannot logically qualify karayy. does not seem valid; the xara here points to the manner (comp. Phil. ii. 3, ili. 6; Winer, G7.§ 49. d), just as, in ch. i. 17, €v pointed to the element of the preaching. The word trepoxy (Hesych. éfoxn, smepBordh) is a dls Acydu. in the N.T., hereand (without a dependent gen.) 1 Tim. ii.2; see also 2 Mace. xiii. 6, Polyb. Hist. 1. 2. 7, 1 Pee 33 codias katayyéhiwv buty TS paptdpiov TOU Ocod: od 2 yap expwa. Te eidévar ev bpiv et uy Inoodv Xpioror, II. 1. uapripiov] It is hard to decide between this and the alternative reading wvorhpiov (Rev., Westc. and Hort). The diplomatic preponderance one way or other is scarcely appreciable. The scale seems turned by the less usual character of the expression wapt. tod @eo0d (contrast ch. i. 6) and by the possibility of wvorfpiov having been suggested by ch. ii. Gh 2. Expwa te eidévar] So Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort: Rec. adds rod after éxpia against very greatly preponderating authority (Lachm., Tisch. also omit) and places 7) after «idéva (so Lachm., Tisch.) with good, but still appy. not preponderating authority. The divided nature of the evidence makes decision very difficult, and the more so, as Versions are claimed in the matter of the order of the words, and perhaps doubtfully. Ve 45; I, al. KaTtayyéAXov] ‘declaring,’ ‘ proclainuing ;’ present part., marking thus not merely that the karayyéAA. was the purpose of the 7Aéey (fut.), but that, in effect, it commenced with, and was con- temporaneous with, the whole action of the verb: comp. Plato, Phed. p. 116 c, jAdev ayyéAAwy, and see Winer, Gr. § 45. 1, Bernhardy, Synt. Sort p-.370s Td PapT. TOD ©cod] ‘ the testimony of God, scil. ‘as to what He had vouchsafed to do for man’s salvation in Christ Jesus,’ I John iy. 9, al.; not gen. subjecti, ‘quod a Deo profectum est,’ Calv., comp. 1 John vy. 9,—but, in accordance with ch. i. 6 (comp. 2 Tim. i.8), gen. objecti, ‘ concern- ing God,’ thy ep) tis oikovoulas Sidackartay, Theod.; so Beza 1, De Wette, Meyer, al. The gloss of Theoph., al., 7d papt’ tovtTeats Toy Odvarov Tod Xpiorod, implies the same construction though somewhat too curtly expressed. 2. od} yap Expiva; ‘For I did not determine,’ ‘it was not my resolve ;’ confirmation of what pre- cedes by a reference to his foregoing state of mind and feeling. The negative, as the order clearly shows, belongs to the verb, not to the fol- lowing ri (Riick., Osiand., al.). In each case the meaning is practically the same, but, in respect of mental habitus, the distinction between the more active state in which a resolu- tion is formed to know no other subject save one, and the more passive and absorbed state in which no resolution is formed to know any other subject, seems fairly appre- ciable. The reasoning of Hofm. is artificial and unsatisfactory, as also his narrowing of the meaning of éxpwa: it certainly does not amount to ‘eximium duxi,’ Calv., comp. Grot., but may still correctly be trans- lated ‘ statui,’ Beza; comp. ch. vii. 37, 2 Cor. li. XY, Tit: mi. 12, al. The Apostle might have decided other- wise, but did not; see Theod. in loc. ti elSévar] ‘to know anything ;’ not merely to preach, but even to bear in conscious know- ledge. The idea of implied duty (‘that I ought to know’), though occasionally to be recognized in the use of the infin. after verbs of com- mand, counselling, &c. (see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p- 288, Lobeck, Phryn. p- 753, Bernhardy, Synt. p. 371), would be here out of place: it was a {non-|determination pure and simple,—rovrTo BovAouat brep Kal 6 D 34 3 Kal ToUTOY eoTavpwpévor. TIPOS KOPINOIOYS MPOTH. ’ ‘ E) 5 / A Kayo ev acbeveia Kat ev poBw Kal ev Tpdp.m TOMAG eyevdpnv Tpos vpGs, Xpiorés, Chrys. That rl is ‘aliquid magni,’ Bretschn. Lew. (‘ something,’ Evans; comp. Gal. ii. 6), is very improbable ; it involves a hiatus in the sequence ei “}) K.7.A., and mars the simplicity of the sentence; odd« &Ardo Tt Aéyav ev buiv, R S715 Xpiords éoravpebn, Chrys. Kal rovtov éoravup.] ‘and Him cruci- fied ;’ definite specification of the office (Casaub.), or, rather, of the aspects under which the Apostle preached his Master,—not as the glorified One, but as the suffering One, "lovdalois wey oxdvSadrov eOveow dé pwplav, ch.i. 23. The inference that the Lord had not generally been so preached by the Apostle’s opponents (De Wette) seems just,— but, that the Apostle had not as yet so preached elsewhere (Neander, al.), eminently the reverse; the Apostle preached Jesus at Athens, as well as at Corinth; see Acts xvii. 18. On the force of xal, here adding the special and the enhancing (‘ facit ad avétmow,’ Calvin; ‘und zwar,’ Meyer) to the more general and unqualified, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, and notes on Col. ii. 5, Phil. iv. 12. 3. Kaydé] ‘ And I,—I personally, apart from the consideration of my teaching’ (ver. 4); continuation of ver. I after the intercalated con- firmatory sentence forming ver. 2: ‘describit rem (ver. I, 2), pre- conem (ver. 3), orationem (ver. 4),’ Bengel. év dobevela] ‘i weakness,’ sc. ‘in consciously-felt weakness suggested by the mighti- ness of the work ;’ ‘ perpenséi mag- nitudine negotii quod sustinebat,’ Calv. 1; comp. Acts. xviii. 9 sq. It does not seem necessary to refer 400. to any definite want of resolu- tion on the part of the Apostle (Hofm.; comp. Hows. in loc.), still less to physical weakness resulting from persecutions (TH Grd Tay diwyyay, Severian; compare Chrys., Theod., al.): the word naturally receives its tinge of meaning from the terms which follow, and marks the spirit in which the Apostle preached among his converts; mdvra juny ramewds, Sever. kal év 6B xk.7.A.] ‘and in fear and in much trembling,’ the morArA@ structurally referring only to the preceding tpdéue, but quoad sensum to the two (hardly to the three [Hofm.}) substantives that stand before it. The expression éBos ral tpdmos (2 Cor. vii. 15, Eph. vi. 5, Phil. ii. 12) seems always used by the Apostle to mark that anxious solicitude that feels it can never do enough; see notes on Eph. l. c. and on Phil. l.c., and comp. Psalm. ii. II, dovaedoatre TG Kupip ev PdBy, kal ayarraabe adT@ ev tpduw. éyevéunv mpds bas] ‘was with you,’ ‘fui apud vos,’ Vulg., scil. in the state above mentioned,—not, ‘came to you’ (comp. 2 John 12), this having been already specified in ver. 1. On this use of mpds (‘ apud, i.g. rapa cum dativo,’ Fritz.), see notes on Gal. i. 18, and for examples of ylyvecOu ev (‘ versari in’) with abstract substantives (e.g. Plato, Legg. 1. p. 635 c, yryvduevor €v tais jdovais), denoting, as here, entrance into, and existence in, any given state, see note on 1 Tim. ii. 14, Steph. Thesawr. Vol. 11. pp. 624, 625 (ed. Hase and Dind.), Ast, in Plat. loc. cit., and the references of Stallb. in loc., Vol. x. p. 68. ee ae Ws 3% f: 35 Ae 4 > ~ , (y) 3 > “ Kal 6 héyos Lov Kal TO KYypuypd jou ovK ev TreLOois 4. aodias hdyous, GAN’ ev drodei&er TIvevuaros Kat duv- 4. goplas] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very distinctly preponderating authority: Rec. prefixes av@pwrivys. 4. Kat & Adyog pov k.7.A,] ‘and (as an illustration of this) my speech and my preaching ;’ the rat being consecutive (comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12), and, of the two sub- stantives, the former (Adédyos) refer- ring not so much to ‘course of argu- ment’ (Alf.) or ‘form as opposed to substance of preaching’ (Stanl.), as simply to oral address generally (compare 2 Cor. x. 10),—the latter (khpuyua), to the same in its more special and studied form; comp. Hofm. in loc. amevQots codtas Adyous] ‘ persuasive words of wisdom;’ scil. words arranged with logical or rhetorical skill, and so designed to persuade; the codias being the gen. of the principal con- stituent (Bernh. Synt. 111. 44, p. 161), or perhaps, more probably, of the characterizing quality or attribute (Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.5. 13), and the epithet me:dots marking that which the copia principally had in view. Hofm. seems to regard codias as a gen. of the originating cause (see notes on 1 Thess. i. 6), and so more exactly parallel to the genitives in the following clause,—but, owing to the difference in the governing substan- tives, less simply and naturally than as above. The adjective medds (=70avds) is not found elsewhere. It is, however, not formed without analogy (e.g. pedds); and may per- haps, as Meyer supposes, have been in common oral use at the time, though as yet no example has been adduced of its written use; see Reiche i loc., and compare Steph. Thesaur. 8. v., ed. Hase and Din- dorf. amoSetEer Mvevp. kal Suvdp.] ‘demonstration. of the Spirit ant power ; ’ in direct anti- thesis to the preceding ; not 7e:o) Adyot, but dardderkss. may be either (a) gen. subjecti,— ‘demonstration wrought by or ema- _nating from the Spirit, &e.’ Theod:, Gicum., al., or ee, ‘showing forth of the Spirit “and | power within, amédeki xov avt 7d Iveta 1 TD é&y.ov, Theoph., comp. ‘Ath. (‘in ostendendo spiritum ’), al. In either case the Tvedua is the Holy Spirit, the article being omitted, either by the law of correlation (Middleton, Art. 3. 3. 6), or by its having the character and linguistic latitude of a proper name (notes on Gal. v. 5). Of the two interpreta- tions of the genitive, the former is distinctly to be preferred as most in harmony with the active dmdédeitis (a am. Aeyou. in N. T.), with the general context, and especially with the last clause of ver. 5 ; comp. Acts vii. 10; so clearly Origen i loc. (Cramer,Cat.), and equally distinctly, Didymus, de Sp. Sancto, cap. 31, where this passage is briefly noticed. On these genitives, see Winer, G7. § 30. 1, Schirlitz, Newtest. Grdc. § 43. 2, p. 246 sq., and the large collection of varied examples of this case in Wilke, Rhet. § 35, p. 137 sq. The reference of Svvapis is thus not to miracles (7) Oavuaroupyla Tov Tvev- patos, Theod.; so also Origen, al.) but to the inward power vouchsafed by God (comp. ver. 5, 2 Cor. iv. 7); from which the dmddeitis emanated, D2 The genitive 36 IIPOZ KOPINOIOY> MPOTH. , € 7 c og © oO 1 Pe 23 dia > 0 , v 5 apews, wa y TloTLs ULoV pH y EV Copia avlpaTrw avn’ ev Suvdper Ocov. 6 Yodiav dé \adovpev €v Tots TeheLors, What we preach is God's wisdom, in- wardly revealed by the Spirit, and discerned only by the spiritual. ‘ Dei arte subnixus,’ Didym. loc. cit. ; see also Hofm. in loc., who has very elaborately discussed the whole clause. On the preaching of St Paul, as illustrated by this verse, see Hooker, Eccl. Pol. m1. 8. 9, 10. 5. tva «.7.A.] ‘im order that your faith might not rest im the wisdom of men, but im the power of God ;’ design and purpose, not of the Apostle (Hofm.), but, as the tenor of the whole passage seems to indicate, of God, who so conditioned and so foreordered the Apostle’s preaching; comp. ch. i. 17; Tovrov xdpw ov clacey tyuas evyAwrrig xphoacba 5 Acondtyns va tuav 7 mloris avumomtos dawntat, ov dewd- THTL Adywv braxOetoa, GAAG TH Suv- duet modnynbeica Tod Ivetuaros, Theodoret. For exx. of elva: &y tit (‘consistere, contineri in’), in which the prep. marks sometimes the ‘sphere or domain of,’ some- times, but more rarely, the ‘ accom- paniments ’ (see notes on Col. ii. 7), sometimes, as perhaps here (comp. ch. iv. 20), the ‘ causal foundation or substratum,’—the shade of meaning varying with the context, see Luke ty..82, Hph. vi. 2, 2 “Thess: 1.40; fim, iy. 15, 1 Joh, Av. 10, als: comp. Bernhardy, Synt.v. 7, p. 210, Harrison, Gr. Prep. p. 246 sq. 6—16. The true wisdom, its na- ture how revealed, and for whom de- signed. The Apostle having already vindicated the simple and non-philo- sophical preaching of the Gospel (ch.1. 17-31), and having further illustrated the same by his own practice at Corinth (ch. ii. 1-5), now goes on to show that there is, nevertheless, a Christian wisdom, far beyond the wisdom of this world, revealed by the Spirit and designed for the perfect ; dvarticocomey otv Thy goplay Tov @cov, Origen. codptav 8 «.T.A.] ‘ Yet we speak a wisdom among the perfect;’ the 5€ not being trans- itional (‘now,’ Stanl.) but contrast- ing and oppositive (va ph clr Tis... oun elxev codlay ovdeutay ae Omipepe Kal Aéyer coplay Be «.7.A,, Orig.), and the plural form including with the Apostle Christian teachers generally ; contrast ch. iii. 1. There is some little doubt as to the exact meaning (a) of the prepo- sition, and (8) of the term TeAé/las, In regard of (a) it seems clear that éy can only mean ‘among,’ se. ‘in the presence and hearing of’ (‘inter’ Vulg.); the use of é&v as a mere ‘nota dativi’ being distinctly un- tenable (see Winer, Gr. § 31. 8), and the ethical ref. to judgment, opinion &e. (‘que plena esse sapientia judicabunt veri et probi Christiani,’ Grot.) being appy. confined to a few well-known pronominal forms, év enol, ev col, x.7.A.; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 211, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 12.6. In regard of (8) it seems equally clear that teAefors is not neuter, and that it is in contrast with vntiows ev Xpiorg, ch. iii. 1; comp. Eph. iv. 13 and notes im loc. It would seem to follow, then, that the Apostle is here referring, not to any special esoteric teaching (disciplina arcani), but simply, as the contrasts in ch, iii. 1 sq. distinctly suggest, to Tar 6s5:7 37 , A > “ + al , XQ’ A , 4 codiav dé od TOV aidvos ToUTOV oOvdE THY apyovTwY Tov al@vos TOVTOUV TaY KaTapyoupEevwrv’ aa Nahod- 7 those higher subjects of Gospel- teaching (T& pvorihpia Tis BactAclas Tay ovpavav, Matth. xiii. 11) which might profitably be brought before the thoughts of the more advanced Christian, but were not fitted for the newly converted or imperfectly in- structed ; &%AAo ydp eorw cioayayelv Twas eis Thy ToT, %AAO Thy copiay Tod cov amoxadvrrew, Orig. What the exact swbstance and con- tent of this teaching might have been cannot be safely defined. De Wette and others (see esp. Estius in loc.) appy. include all the Apostle’s deeper teaching (‘que continet se- cretiora et altiora nostre religionis mysteria,’ Estius): Meyer and others more naturally restrict it to the principal subject-matter of the con- text, viz. God’s eternal counsels of redemption and love in Christ cruci- fied (ch. i. 23), and in Christ glori- fied (ch. ii. 8, 9) ; comp. Eph. iii. 11, Plait. 15, 16, © Pet. i 12, al. On this clause as suggesting the ex- cellency of the Christian religion, see Barrow, On the Creed, Serm. xvi. Vol v. p. 60 sqq. S& od Tot aldvog TotvTov] ‘a wis- dom however not of this world ;’ the d€ repeating with a contrasting ex- planatory force (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 361, Hartung, Partik. Vol 1. p. 168, Winer, Gr. § 53. 7. 6) the pre- vious substantive ; comp. Rom. iii. 22, Phil. ii. 8, and notes im loc. The wisdom which the Apostle spoke did not belong to the passing age or fleeting course of things (comp. notes on Eph. ii. 2), but related to what was enduring and eternal ; it was 7 copia tywley Karepxouevn, James ili. 15. Tod aldvog TovTov] ‘of the (earthly) codlav TOV apPX. rulers of this world;’ ‘principum hujus seculi,’ Vulg.: it was not the wisdom of the Suvaro) or the evyeveis (ch. 1. 26), whether among the Greeks or the Jews. The expression has been referred by some of the early commentators (Origen, al.; & comp. Estius, Aquinas) to spiritual powers (compare Eph. vi. 12), by others to the philosophers and leaders of thought (copioras A€yet, Theod.), but in both cases clearly in opposition to the gloss afforded by ver. 8. TOV KaTaApyoupévov] ‘who are being brought to nought ;’ the present here having appy. its simple temporal force (opp. to Meyer who advocates the ethical use; comp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 54. 2), and marking the process already referred to (ch. i. 28), which was persistently going on. The kardpyn- gis is very differently explained. The older commentators refer it to _ the simple temporal passing away (cupmatovta TS wapdytt Biy, Gicum.) and oAryoxpévios apxh of the rulers ; many of the later to definite epochs, such as the destruction of Jerusalem (Rosenm.), or the future coming of Christ (Mey.). The most natural reference seems that suggested by ch. i. 28, viz. to that gradual nullifi- cation of all real and enduring potency on their part which was brought about by the Gospel; see Hofm. and esp. Neander im loc. 7. &AAG Aadotdwev] ‘but we — speak ;’ the a@dAda@ having its full adversative force (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo dicturi sumus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2), and the AaAovuev by its very iteration adding weight and emphasis to the declaration ; comp. Rom. vili. 15, Phil. iv. 17. 38 POS KOPIN@IOYS TIPOTH. lal / / ‘ b] é pev Ocov codiav ev pvoTnpio, THY aToKeKpupLEeryy, c ‘\ ‘\ A + IER od > A jv mpoapirev 6 Oeds mpd TaY aldver eis dav 8 Hpav* Hv ovdels TOV ApxdvTwV TOU ai@vos TovTOU 7. @e0d coplav) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority : Rec., copiay Ocov, ©cod codlav] ‘God’s wisdom;’ with full emphasis on the genitive, as the collocation indicates; see Winer, Gr. § 30. 3. 4. The gen. seems here simply possessive; the wisdom which God has and which He vouchsafes to reveal to His seryants ; comp. ver. I0. év pvoTnplo] ‘im a mystery,’ sc. in the substance and under a form of teaching hidden to man but re- vealed to us His Apostles and preachers; the prep. here marking, not so much the means employed (comp. Mey., and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18), as the ideal substance in which, as it were, the Aadciv was embodied, and so, indirectly, the form and manner in which it took place (comp. ch. xiii. 12, and see notes on Piilem. 6),—and the subst. retaining its usual meaning in St Paul’s Epp., of something ‘ not comprehensible by unassisted human reason ;’ see notes ow Eph. v. 32. The connexion of éy wvor. with thy amokekp. (Theod.) is out of harmony with the order of the words and the position of the article; the con- nexion with copiay (Mey., al.), though grammatically permissible (compare Winer, Gr. § 20. 2), is inconsistent with ordinary perspicuity; comp. Hofm. in loc. Ti\V aTroKe- Kpuvppéevny] ‘the hidden (wisdom);’ ‘the wisdom that lies in conceal- ment,’ Martensen (Chr. Ethics, Part m. § 71); not simply in re- ference to the present (BAémopev yap upt: ev €odntpy, Theoph.; Geum.), nor simply in ref. to the past (Grot.), but, as the tense, the defining rela- tive clause, and general context (comp. ver. 9, 10), all clearly sug- gest, alike to the past (comp. Rom. xvi. 25, Eph. iii. 9) and_to the present; ‘est occulta antequam expromitur; et quum expromitur tamen occulta manet multis, im- perfectis,’ Beng. On the mysterious character of Christianity, see South, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 489 sqq. Av mpodpicev «.7.A.] ‘which (wis- dom) God foreordained before the ages unto our glory ;’ relative clause defining more fully the foregoing par- ticiple, and specifying the involved issues; the copia was to prove and issue forth in our défa. Hofmann seems right in saying that the eis ddtay does not mark the definite purpose of the mpoopiouds (comp. Alf.), as in such a case we must have had some other object-accus. (‘einen Willensbegriff wie Bovajy, Akt. ii. 23, nicht aber einen Wissenbegriff ’), but rather that which the codia was to introduce and to result in. The doctrinal comment of Theodoret is very suggestive; od udyny cwrnplay GAAG Kal Sdkay Xopnryet ToOis mMioTEVOU- ow, \V 8. Av odSels K«.7.A.] * which (wisdom) no one of the rulers of this world knoweth:’ parallel to the preceding relative clause, and ob- viously referring to the same sub- ject, copay. The reference to ddéav (Tertull. Marc. v. 6), alluded to but not adopted by Est., is wholly out of Nee TE Oy, & 39 ¥ > \ ¥ > x N , A EyYVOKEV, el yap cyvwoaVv, OVK GV TOV Kupvov Ty)S d6€ys harmony with the context; it was not an ignorance of the ddéfa of the Christian but of the copia of God that led the &pyovres to act as they did act; Ayvonkéeva «vorhpiov, Theod. el yap «.7.A.] ‘for if they had known it ;’ parenthetical confirma- tion by the appeal to common ex- perience ; ‘non credibile est eos eruci addicturos fuisse (aut in- stigatione suf ut Sacerdotes, aut decreto ut Pilatus, aut consensu ut Herodes) eum quem Deus esse vult omnium judicem,’ Grot. The cruci- fiers of the Lord are here viewed under the corporate term &pxovres Tov ai@vos Tov’Tov: Jews condemned the Lord to death (Matth. xxvi. 66) ; Romans confirmed the condemna- tion, and drove in the nails; comp. Acts ii. 36, iv. Io. Tov Kiptov tis S6&ns] ‘the Lord of glory,’ scil. the Lord whose essen- tial attribute is glory; the genitival relation not being that of possession, in the sense of Christ being ‘ prin- ceps, auctor, et consummator glori- ficationis suorum,’ Est.,—but simply that of the characterizing quality ; see notes on 2 Thess. ii. 7, and compare, as to the expression, Acts vii. 2, Eph.i.17, Heb. ix. 5, James ii. 1, and, as to the spiritual truth, Luke ix. 26, Johni. 14, xvii. 5, Phil. iii. 21, al. In exx. of this form of gen. there may commonly be discerned some trace of a rhe- torical or semi-poetical force. In earlier Greek this is more clearly marked (comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 402.¢, Scheuerl. Synt. § 16.3) ; in the later writers, where there is an obvious tendency to rhetorical form without a specially intended increase of TovTous Ayer Td. Oetoy eotavpwoav’ ahha Kalas yéypamtra “A g meaning (comp. notes on Phil. iii. I1), and in the N. T., where the parallel Hebrew usage had obviously much influence, the rhetorical em- phasis is less distinetly to be traced ; see the numerous exx. in Wilke, Fhetorik, § 35, p. 137. Here, how- ever, the expression is designedly chosen, and in studied antithesis to the mention of the crucifixion ; adotia eddxer 6 cravpds, Theoph. Had the épxovres known the wisdom of God they would not have acted in ref. to our Lord kar’ ayvo.y (Acts ili. 17) as they did act, but instead of ecrucifying would have acknow- ledged and honoured Him; see above. . 9. GAALKABdS yéypamrat] ‘But : as it hath been written ;’ adversative clause corresponding to the jy ovdels n,.7T.A, the aAdAd, with its normal usage (ovx—aaAdd), introducing the antithesis to the involved ov. The quotation here introduced by the formal radws yéyparra: cannot very readily be verified. Origen (in Matth. p. 916 B, ed. Delarue) and others deem the passage a citation from the ‘Apocalypsis Elie’ (comp. Coteler, Const. Apost. v1. 16) ; Theo- doret, Chrys. 2, al., more plausibly, a citation from some lost pro- phetical writing. It seems, however, more natural and more consistent with the Apostle’s established use of the formal kadas yeyp., (thus far rightly, Theodoret, ape? 7) marapla yAaTTa, joaca, vévp:) to regard the words as a free cita- tion of a passage in a canonical book (Isaiah lxiv. 4), with which it is quite possible memory might have combined other and similar passages (Isaiah lii. 15, lxv. 17); so Jerome, Kkadas 40 IIPOZ KOPINOIOYS ITIPOTH. Ks dpOadrpos ovdk Eldev Kal ovs OvK HKOVTEY Kal ETL , > dé > > / 4 c / c x Kapotav avOparrov ovk aveBy, 07a NToimacev 0 Oeds “A > cal > / c a) \ > / c ‘ 10 Tols dyara@ow aitov. npw dé dmexdduev 6 Ocos 9. 80a] So Lachm., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on appy. preponderat- ing authority: Rec., Tisch., é The authorities are very evenly balanced, but the scale seems turned by the greater probability of the change of dca into the relative than the reverse. 10. amexdAupev 6 Ocds} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rec., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 6 @eds admexdAuype. Tov Mvevuaros} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds adrod. The same uncial authorities as in the last-mentioned case read the Alexandrian form épavv@ in place of the more usual épeuva. Epist.(ad Pammach.) 101, and follow- ing him the majority of recent ex- positors; comp. Surenhus. Kataaa. p- 527, Riggenbach, Stud. wu. Krit. 1855, p.596. The way in which Clem. Rom. (ad Cor. i. 34) reproduces the passage (dca éroluacey Tois bmomev- ovg.y avrdéy, asin Isai. lxiv. 4), seems fairly to disclose Clement’s opinion of the source of the quotation. To regard the passage as really from an apocryphal book, but quoted by failure of memory as from a canon- ical book (Meyer, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 74. b, note, Vol. 1. p. 383, Transl.), must be pronounced, on the evidence before us, as by no means demon- strable. & dm0arpdsg kx. T.A.] ‘things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man, (even) as many things as God hath prepared for them that love Him ;’ loosely de- pendent on the preceding AadAodyer, and added to define more fully the substance of the gopiav. So rightly, Meyer, in his last ed.; the con- nexion with the first clause of ver. 10 (revived by Hofmann), though grammatically defensible (on such use of 6€ in an apodosis, see Klotz, Devar. Vol 11. p. 374 8q.), being defi- cient in simplicity and perspicuity, and tending, as De Wette has rightly observed, to suggest a contrast (which could not have been in the Apostle’s thoughts) between the jut and the preceding tots ayaraow aitév. On the meaning of xapdia, which is here used, with some latitude, to indicate the seat of thinking and understanding as well as of feeling, see the excellent article of Cremer, Worterb. s.v. p. 347 sq., Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. iy. 11, p. 203 sq., Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 68. d. note, Vol. 1. p. 349 (Transl.), and notes on Phil. iv. 8,and on 1 Tim. i. 5. The form avéBn émt Kapdiay is obviously only the grecized 3b by nby: comp. Jerem. ili. 16, Acts vii. 23. Toig ayataéo.w avtrév] The Tots brouévovow Ereov of the LXX and of the Old Test. here suitably and per- tinently passes into the evangelical Tois ayanGow aitoy of the N. T.: oldauev Sti Tois ayamaow thy Oedy mayTa cuvepye: eis a&ya0dv, Rom. viii. 28. As Aquin. well observes, ‘ essen- tiale premium wterne glorie chari- tati debetur ;’ comp. John xiv. 21. \ 10. Apiv &€) ‘But to us,’—teachers and preachers of the Gospel; the de putting the jets in general and recapitulatory contrast with those included in the first clause of ver. 8. Ih ‘to oo if & 41 ‘ lal an \ ¥ lal , > an dua TOV ITvevpatos, To yap IIvevpa tavta epavva, ‘\ *~ , La! ~ ! ‘\ 3S ’ - \ kat Ta BAOn TOV Oeov. Tis yap oidey avOpaérwv Ta II The negation in the first part of ver. 8 thus stands in antithesis to dé as well as to aAAd (ver. 9). The distinction, however, between the cases is clear. The &AA& introduces the special and immediate adversa- tive relation; the 5€ places before the reader the more general contrast ; see above, notes on ch. i. 10, where the distinction between the common ovk—aaAAd, and the less usual od (ui) followed by 6¢, is briefly investigated. Westc. and Hort., read yap; but on insufficient authority, and in the face of the appy. greater prob- ability of the 5¢ here being changed into yép than the reverse. T yap Mvetwa «x.7.A.] ‘for the Spirit searches all things ;’ scil. the personal Holy Spirit ; comp. ver. 11, 12. The present clause confirms more immediately the latter part of the preceding verse; the amoxaAuviis verily so comes to us (5: Tov Ty.), for the Holy Spirit investigates, accurately searches into, all things. The verb epavyav (probably connected with épé), though not necessarily and per se indicating more than ‘ tracking out’ (iva, Homer, Jl. xvitt. 321, Odyss. x1x. 436), ‘search’ (Hesych. epevvav: (ntetv; comp. Schleusn. Lex. s. v.), appears always used in the N. T. of active, accurate, and careful search; axpiBots yvooews evTaida Td epevvay evdeixtixdy, Chrys., comp. Theod., Severian, al.; see John vy. 39, vii. 52, Rom. viii. 27, I Pet. i. 11, Rev. ii. 23, and comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1211 sq., and the examples in Steph. Thesaur. s. Vv. Vol. 111. p. 2005, esp. Antiphon, p. 133. I. Kal Ta BAOn TOD Ocod) ‘even the deep things of God,’ ‘profunda Dei,’ Vulg. ; not only the eternal counsels of God, but all the blessed mysteries of His essence and attributes,— ‘etiam nature divine, non modo regni ejus,’ Beng.: comp. Rom. xi. 33, and contrast Ta Baléa tod Satrava, Rey. ii. 24. This clause is one of cardinal importance in reference to the Scripture doctrine of the Holy Ghost. As Severian (Cram. Cat.) rightly says, 5’ dAov Tod xwptov [the passage before us] 7d Tvedua 7d dytov To dilute this plain reference to the personal Holy Spirit into a mere reference to the self- consciousness of God (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 84. b, Vol. 1. p. 456 note [Transl.]), is to traverse other and similar texts (Gal. iv. 6, Rom. viii. 9, I1, 26, 34), which cannot, with common fairness, be explained away, —to confuse in what follows the recognized principles of St Paul’s psychology in regard of the human mvedpua (see notes on I Thess. v. 23), —and to mar the whole illustrative reasoning of the passage. The mvedua in yer. Ir is not the human self-consciousness, but the third and highest part of our composite nature, and so a kind of feeble similitude of the Third Person of the blessed immanent Trinity. On this vital passage, see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 28, Vol. 1. p. 359 sq. (Transl.), and on the profound question of the relation of the Third to the First and Second Persons, Dorner, ib. § 31 b, p. 425, and comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. §§ 56, 181. II. tls yapx.7.A.] ‘ For who of men knoweth the things of a man,’ or, more exactly, the man, scil. the man specified by the ris: amplification, and confirmatory explanation, of the SelkvuTat. 42 IPOS KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH. - m~ 3 , > ‘ x A a, 2 4 ‘ 5 Tod avOparrov ei pH TO TVEDLA TOD avOpdrov 70 ev avT@ ; oUTws Kal TA TOV cod ovdels EyvwKer Et 1) “~ ~ “~ c Lal cal Lal 12 70 [veda tov Ocov. jpets d€ od Td TrEDpa TOU 11. &yvaxev] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., olde, latter part of the preceding verse ; tav avOpérwv being emphatic and in studied juxtaposition to 7a Tod avOpémov: ‘ notat similitudinem nat- ure,’ Bengel. It is from the ana- logy of man’s nature and man’s self- knowledge that the Apostle illus- trates, almost a fortiori, the truth in the conclusion of ver. 10. As the spirit of a man alone knows the things of the man in question (generaliter dictum,—not merely ra Ban Tod avOpHmov), even though man is the like of his fellow-men, so verily is it the Holy Spirit that searches the depths of God,—and He alone; comp. Hofm. in loc., who, though here rather diffusely argumentative, appears to have caught rightly the general current of the passage. Td év advto] ‘which is in him;’ closer specification of the mvedua, giving also indirectly a proof of the assertion; ‘criterium veri, natura conscia,’ Beng.: it is because it is in him that it knows as it does know. It is not the Wvxy of man, but the avedua that is in him, the third and highest part of his composite nature (7d cuuTAnpwpatiKby Tod bAov ay- @pémou, Sever.), that is the true self- knowing subject: see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. p. 155, and on the general distinction, the comments in the present writer’s Destiny of Creature, Serm. v., and notes on Phil. i. 27, and on 1 Thess. v. 23. éyvwoxev] ‘knoweth,’ ‘ cognovit,’ Vulg., or, possibly here more exactly, cometh to know, ‘ cognita habet,’ De Wette. It is not easy, either here or in other passages in the N.T. (comp. John xxi. 17), to draw the exact distinction between olda and €yvwxa. Without over-pressing, or limiting the reference of the former to the senses, and the latter to the mind (comp. Stanl. im loc.), it seems correct to say that ofda is the more inclusive term, and points to know- ledge generally, however arrived at, éyvwxa to knowledge as acquired and arrived at by the reference of the subject to some object which supplies it (emiorHunv mov AaBeiv, Plato, Thee. p. 209 £):; see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. s. v. 08a, p. 230. ottws Kal Ta TOD Ocod k.T-A-j ‘so also the things of God knowéth no one save the Spirit of God ;’ com- pletion of the profound statement, and application of the suggestive, but imperfect human analogue. This verse is used by Bp. Sanderson in his treatise de Obligatione Con- scientia, as his text to Prelect. 1. 12. hpets St «.7.A.] Application of the general statement to the par- ticular case, and further elucidation of the nature and the reality of the amokdAuyis (ver, 10); the jueis cor- responding to the juiv above, and the two opposed members illustra- ting and expanding the 6a tod Tivevmaros: ‘amplificat a compara- tione contrariorum certitudinem illam cujus meminerat,’ Calv. Td TvedLa TOD K6apLOV] ‘the spirit of the world,’ scil. its present ani- \mating and directive principle. There is some little difficulty in settling the exact meaning of this DE: 42, FS; Koopov edd Bower, adda 75 [Ivedpwa 7d éx ToD Ocov, Wa eloapev TA Vd TOU Oeod xapicberta Hiv: & 13 \ ~ > > “A > td , kat Nadovpev ovk €v SiOaKTois avOpwrivys codias expression. On the one hand, to make it simply equivalent (a) to ‘sapientia mundana et secularis’ (Estius; comp. Theoph., De W., al.) is to mar the balance of the antithesis, which certainly seems to imply something more substantive and objective. On the other hand, to make it equivalent (b) to the ‘spirit of the Devil’ (Meyer ; comp. 2 Cor.iv. 4, Eph. vi. 11, 12, John xii. 31, al:) is to bring out more fully the moral element than the context seems to suggest; see Hofmann in loc. It seems best, then, to take the words in the more general sense above specified : comp. Eph. ii. 2; and, on the meaning of the word kéomos, consider the thoughtful re- marks of Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 96, 97; comp. notes on Gal. av: 3s Td €K TOD Ocod] ‘which is from God ;’ not merely ‘Spiritum Dei,’ Clarom., but ‘ qui ex Deo est,’ Vulg.,—and is directly vouchsafed to us from Him (‘ anti- theton éy, ver. 11,’ Beng.) : Tlarpds eéxmopevduevoy edidatey quas, Theod. Being so, our knowledge will indeed be sure and complete; ‘Spiritus est a Deo, ac proinde supra omnem dubitationis aleam positus,’ Caly. tva eiSGpev «.7.A.] ‘ that we might know the things which have been freely given to us by God;’ divine Be rep in the vouchsafed reception of the Spirit, the irs rod cod echoing, as it were, the éx tod @cod: God’s Spirit has enabled us to know and realize God’s gifts. These gifts are not merely ‘ beneficia que ex ejus [Christi] morte et resurrectione consequimur’ (Caly..—who seems avTo Td eK Tov Tlvevpa | to read Xpiorod, though without any grounds), but, generally and compre- hensively, the blessings of the Gospel dispensation (r& katd& Thy oikovoulay yeyovéra tod} Xpicrov, CMicum.), whether present (comp. Eph. i. 14) or future. The ra imd rod Ocod xapiobevra are in effect the same as & jroluacev 6 @eds (ver. 9), though perhaps including a little more of present reference ; comp. Estius and Hofmann im loc. The polemical applications of the passage (de fidelium heesitatione) will be found in Calvin and Estius. In reference to these, it is only necessary to re- mark that the meaning ‘ certo scire’ (Calv.), ‘certo noscere’ (Grot.), is not necessarily or logically involved in the verb «idévar, The degree of such knowledge will always be modified by the degree of faith. 13. & Kal Aadotpev] ‘which also we speak ;’ the manner in which God made the revelation (ver. 10) being now set forth and elucidated, the Apostle passes to the manner in which the substance of the revelation was orally delivered ; ‘not only do we thus mercifully acquire the knowledge of +a ird rod @cov «.7.A., but we also speak them, to you and to others;’ the kat slightly accentuating the Aadoduer, and implying the accordance of the act with the previously specified revelation, ver. Io sq. On this common, but delicately expressive use of kai, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. Dp: 635. avOpatlyns codtas] ‘human wisdom;’ gen. dependent on the verbal didaKrds (comp. John vi. 45, Isaiah liv. 13, 1 Macc. iv. 7, and see Winer, Gr. 44 IPOS KOPINOIOY= MPOTH. Adyous, add’ ev SidaxrTots [vevparos, TrvevpatiKots 13. Tvetuaros] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds aylov, § 30. 4), and defining the agency by which the teaching was not, and was, imparted. To make the geni- tive dependent on Adyors is obviously negatived by the second member of the sentence ; and to give the verbal 5:daxrds its prevalent classical mean- ing ‘ qui doceri potest’ (Plato, Protag. p- 3280, Xenoph. Gicon. cap. 12. 10) is out of harmony with the general context. The Apostle is not speaking of what could be taught, but what was taught. On the nature of the geni- tival relation in cases such as the present, and its essentially synthetic character, see the excellent com- ments of Rumpel, Casuslehre, pp. 237,242sq. The reading 5:5ax7, pre- ferred by Beng., rests on no critical authority worthy of consideration. TTVEVIATLKOLS TWTVEVLATLKG oUV- ‘combining spiritual things with spiritual ;’ participial clause defining the associated acts and circumstances ; comp.1 Thess. iii. 10, and notes in loc. In cases like the present, which are by no means uncommon in the N. T., the use of the participle is not so much modal as supplemental ; it serves to define the action more clearly by specifying in the form of a secondary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 442 sq.) the accompaniments or associated circumstances; comp. Winer, G7. § 45.2, Kiihner, Gr. § 486. 6, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56.9. 1 sq.; and for a list of the various uses of the participle, see Bernhardy, Synt. x1v. 13, p. 475, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 207, and esp. the elaborate synopsis of Kiihner, Gr. § 480, prefixed to his full and thorough discussions of this most Kplvovres] characteristic element of the Greek sentence, The exact meaning of the clause is somewhat doubtful, as (I) mvevparicots may be mase. (Est., Beng., Riick., al.) or neuter, and (2) ovyxplvew admits several varieties of interpretation. As regards (1) the decision is not difficult (not- withstanding the able comments of Hofmann in loc.), as not only the prominent position of mvevyarixois and its apparently studied juxta- position to the preceding d:daxtois IIveduaros, but also the clear re- ference of the context to the things taught (& kal Aadoduev) rather than to the persons taught (this idea comes in afterwards) seem very de- cidedly in favour of the neuter: so De Wette, Meyer, Ewald, and the majority of the best commentators ancient and modern. In regard, however, of (2) the difficulty of de- cision is very great, there being at least three meanings which may plausibly be assigned to ovyxplvew, viz. (a) to combine (opp. to d:axp. ; comp. Plato, Tim. Locr. p. 101 c, Td Aevady Siaxpiver ray dw, Td 5 wéAay ovykptvet; comp. Valck. Schol. Vol. II. 135), as Calv., Beza, De Wette, Meyer, al.,—(b) to compare (‘com- parare,’ Vulg., Syr., Arm.), as in 2 Cor. x. 12, and very frequently later writers, e.g. Polyb. Hist. v1. 47. 9 (cuvexpwe kal Sinpetva Ta Acydueva), xu. 10. I, al., Diod. Sic. Bibl. Hist. Iv. 14, al.; comp. Lobeck., Phryn. p. 278,—and thence derivatively, (c) to explain or interpret (sc. ‘ com- parando explicare,’ Valck.), as appy. in the LXX, eg. Gen. xl. 8 (Aq. émiAvew), 16, 22, Dan. y. 12, al.: i. 14: 45 A , ‘ L Nea J 3 TVEVLATLKA TUVKpWWoVTEs. wuyiKos O€ avOpwros od 14 déxerar TA TOU IIvevparos Tov Ocov, pwpia yap so Chrys. (amd trav mvevmarinay Tas paptuplas &yew), Theod.-Mops. (ao- dexvivat), and most of the ancient expositors. Of these (c) is lexically doubtful, as the idea of ‘ interpreta- tion’ rather comes from the context (evirvioy ovykplvew) than from the essential meaning of the word (opp. to Hofmann), which appy. does not go beyond the idea of ‘judging of’ or ‘estimating;’ see Palm u. Rost, Lew. s. v., and Meyer im loc. It is also contextually un- satisfactory, as the verse seems clearly to refer, not to any com- parison or elucidation by comparison of spritual things with each other, but to the form (ovn & SdidaKrots «:7.A.) in which they were conveyed. As the last objection applies with equal force to (b) we seem justified in deciding in favour of (a), which is not only lexically certain, but also fully in harmony with the context, —the meaning being, that the Apostle clothed his Spirit-revealed truths in Spirit-taught language, and thus combined what was spiritual in substance with what was spiritual in form: for further details see De Wette and Meyer zn loc., and Kling, Stud. u. Krit. for 1839, p. 437. 14. wWuxiKds 8 Gv8pwtros] ‘ Now a natural man,’ or, in our idiom, ‘ the natural man,’ ‘ animalis homo,’ Vulg., scil. one in whom the ux7 is the predominating element, 6 kara odpka (ay kal ujmrw Toy vody pwricbels dia =Tov Tvetparos, Cyril (Cram. Caten.): transition from the form and substance of the message to the hearers and receivers of it, the de being here slightly peraBarikdy (Hartung, Partik. Vol.1.p. 165), and serving to prepare the way for the contrast which immediately follows, and the Apostle’s own difficulties in connexion with it, ch. iii. 1 sq. The WuxiKds (contrasted generally with the receivers of the Spirit, ver. 12, and directly with mvevuarinds, ver. 15) here specified, is the man whose soul, with its merely human long- ings and affections (‘vis inferior que agitur, movetur, in imperio tenetur,’ Olsh. Opusc. p. 154), un- hallowed and unillumined, and, so to speak, despiritualized (comp. Jude 19, Wuxikol, mvedua wh ExovTes), is to him the all in all,—*man devoted in his thoughts and strivings to the phenomenal world [ineffect, capkucds, ch. iii. 1], and lost in it,’ Miiller, Chr. Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 1. p. 298 (Transl.); see also Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. p. 398 sq. (Transl.), Beck, Seelenl. 1.8, p. 17 sq. The Wuxirds has practically no mvedua; it indeed latently exists, and, it may be, after death will make itself fearfully re- cognized, but having lost all its blessed and quickening communica- tion with 7d Mwedua 7d G&y.ov, it is as though it were not; see Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, p. 81 sq. On the whole subject see notes and reff. on 1 Thess. v. 23, and Destiny of Creature, Serm. v. p. 99 sq. ov S€xerat] ‘veceiveth not,’ scil. ‘non vult admittere,’ Beng. The mean ing ‘non percipit’ (Vulg., Clarom. ; comp. Grot., Calv., al.) is lexically admissible, but not in accordance with the prevailing use of the word in the N. T. in ref. to teaching &e.; see Luke viii. 13, Acts viii. 14, xi. 1, al., 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 13, James i. 21, where déxeo0a: refers, not to the understanding, but to the reception in the heart; so rightly Syr., Copt., 46 MNPOS KOPINSIOY> TIPOTH. b} “~ 3 ‘ > , A 9 lal QaUT@ €OTL, KAL OU dvvarat YVOVal, OTL TVEVLATLKWS 15 avakpiveras. c \ . > / , 6 O€ mvevpaTiKds avakpive tavTa, 15. dvaxpive: mdvra] The reading here presents some difficulties. After dvaxplver, Rec., (Treg.], Rev., Westc. and Hort., add wév: Lachm., Tisch., omit on apparently preponderating authority, The insertion of 7a before mdvra {Lachm.) is well supported (hence Westc. and Hort. place it as a bracketed alternative reading to »év), but the omission (Rec., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort.) rests on preponderating authority. Mth., Arm. (Theod. di5ackarlay ph mpoctéuevov), and the majority of modern commentators. On the ap- propriation of Christianity, see Mar- tensen, Chr. Ethics, Part 1. § 92. popla yap «.7.A.] ‘ for they are fool- ishness unto him,’ not merely ‘ seem to be’ (De Wette), but, asin ch. i. 18, actually are, the negative clause that follows (comp. Luke i. 20) substan- tially repeating the same idea: the object is foolishness to the subject (‘quasi stultorum voces nihil signi- ficantes,’ Grot.), and (not ‘neither can he,’ Auth., which would imply ov5é, comp. Rom. viii. 7) the subject cannot understand the nature of the object ; see Hofmann in loc. Sri wvevpaTiKds Avakplverar] ‘be- cause they are spiritually judged of ;” and only so,—‘ nonnisi spiritualiter,’ Beng. The adverb, as Meyer rightly remarks, refers, not to the man’s spirit, but to the Holy Spirit (comp. ver. 13), which enlightens the human spirit, and gives the needed power of discernment; 6 THs Tod Tyvevparos xdpitos jkiwuevos, ards pév tkavds érépous diddta, Tis Se Erépwv didac- Kadlas ovk évdéns, Theod. The verb évaxplvew is only used by St Paul in this Epistle: it occurs in its forensic sense Luke xxiii. 18, Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xxiv. 8, xxviii. 18, and once, Acts xvii. 11, as here, in the general sense of ‘proving,’ ‘coming to a judgment on:’ avaxpiwopevos: efera- (éuevos, Hesychius; dvaxplvew kab erAéyxew eoriv, Chrys. in loc. 15. 6 S€ mvevpartixés] ‘ But the spiritual man,’ whether hearer or otherwise: ‘pulchre additur hic articulus; WvxiKds sine articulo,’ Beng. The wvevuarinds (opp. to the wWuxikds, comp. ver. 14) is the man whose human zvedyua is illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and in whom it is the predominant influence; see above on ver. 14. The existence of the mvefua as distinct from the yux} is denied by Hofmann, im loc. and Schriftbeweis, Vol. 1. 294, Rothe, Dogmatik, Part 1. § 62, and by a few recent writers; but without sufficient grounds. It may be ad- mitted that man’s nature is often referred to in Scripture kata d:x0- Toulay, viz.as composed of a material and an immaterial part, but it is always equally true that this im- material part is regarded, esp. in the N. T., as composed of two ele- ments, soul and spirit, which are not merely nominally, but actually and essentially, distinct; see the short but careful treatise in Olshausen, Opuscula, pp. 143-163, Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, Vol. 1. pp. 495-516, Plitt, Evang. Glawbensl., Vol. u. pp. 212-219. wavTa] all things, whether personal or im- personal, spiritual or natural: ‘ the divinely illuminated man has the appropriate standard for everything,’ Tire 7164 47 SN XN et + N > , , N » airos Sé vm’ ovderds dvaxpivera. Tis yap éyvw 16 ww“ / a , > , ec Lal \ lal vouv Kuptov, 0s cvpBiBace: aitov; jnpels dé voor Neand. Whatsoever things fall within the seope of the judgment are judged of by the mvevparixds, the illumina- tion of the Holy Ghost supplying him with the necessary power. No better illustration of the truth of this can be supplied than that which is furnished by the Apostle himself (Mey.), and by the marvellous force and clearness of his own judgments on the various matters (as for example in this very Epistle) that came before him,—lawsuits of Christians, ch. vi. I-4; marriage and its various aspects, ch. vii. I sq. ; slavery, ch. vii. 20 sq.; woman’s position, ch. xi. 3 sq., xiv. 34 sq.; speaking with tongues, ch. xiv. 6 sq. In all these things we see the wide scope of the avd«piois. According to Aristotle (Ethic. 3. 4) it is the onovdatos who exaota kpiver dp0ds ; but how is the omovdatos to be de- fined? comp. Estius im loc. avtds 8 «.7.A.] ‘ but he himself is judged of by no one,’ scil. whois not mveuwarikds (comp. ch. xiv. 29), this limitation being really involved in the first and affirmative clause of _ the verse. The standpoint of the spiritual man is too high for anyone not similarly placed to pass a judg- ment upon him; comp. 1 Joh. iv. 1, where a power of testing and judging is assumed on the part of those addressed, and rules given for rightly exercising it. 16. tis yap «.7.A] ‘For who hath known,’ or,—to preserve the aoristic form,—‘who ever knew;’ confirmation (yap) of the clause im- mediately preceding by a quotation from Isaiah, ch. xl. 13, comp. Rom. xi. 34: to be able to judge of the mvevwatikés, @ man must not only have, as we have, the mind of Christ, but must even be able to instruct Him. The complete syllo- gism would be as follows: ‘no one (scil. ‘qui merus homo sit,’ Beng.) knows the mind of the Lord, and can thus be able to instruct Him; but we who are mvevuatixol have the mind of Christ; it follows then that we cannot be known, and so be judged of or instructed by anyone who is not a mvevuarixds aS we are.’ In the quotation Kvpis obviously refers to God; here however, as used by St Paul, it refers as ob- viously to Christ, otherwise the minor of the syllogism would have no logical force. Such interchanges are evidences of no slight weight of St Paul’s innermost conviction of the Godhead of Christ. voov Kuptov] ‘the mind of the Lord :’ not, ‘the spirit of the Lord’ (Neander), and hardly so little as ‘the intent and disposition of the Lord’ (Alf.), but, generally, His mind,—alike the willing and the thinking faculty : see esp. the clear and thoughtful com- ments of Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. Iy. 5. p. 212 sq. (Transl.). The omis- sion of the article is probably due to the principle of correlation: the gen. Kupiov is, as not unfrequently in that case (Winer, Gr. § 19.1, s.v.), used here without the article: being absent from the governed noun it is absent also from the governing noun; see notes on Hph. v. 8. The word voids is etymologically con- nected with T'NQ, Sanser. gna, and primarily involves the ideas of per- ception and knowledge ; see Curtius, Griech. Etym. p. 163 (ed. 2), Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. % p. 182 sq. ed. 1), Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. m. p. 48 Xpiorov €xopev. Ill. Kayd, adehqpot, odk ndvv74Oynv dadz- MIPOS KOPINGEIOY2 TIPOQTH. I have been con- strained, by the state of things among you, to treat you as men of carnal minds. Ill. 1. Kay] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Lec., kal éya. above critical editions, on very clearly preponderating authority: capxivois| So the Rec., capxxois. The reading of Rec. is defended by Reiche, Comment. Crit. Part 1. p. 138, with considerable plausibility : the critical evidence, however, seems conclusive for the less usual form. 143. On the distinction between vous and mvedua, see notes on Phil. iv. 7, and on 1 Tim. vi. 5. 8s cupPiBdcer] ‘who shall instruct,’ i.e.‘ so as to instruct,’ Syr., al.—the relative sentence here approximating to the final, and the s having some- thing of the force of Sore: see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 13. 10, Jelf, Gr. § 836.4. The meaning of cvu Bip. is properly ‘to put together’ (comp. Eph. iv. 16, Col. ii. 2, 19, and notes in locc.), but, in later Greek, as here, has the naturally derived meaning ‘imstruere,’ scil. ‘docere ;’ Hesych. oupBiBS* diddoKw; Suid. cvpBiBdcor" diddoxwy: see exx. in Wetst. Test. Vol. mu. p. 109. It only occurs in two other passages, viz. Acts ix. 22, where the meaning is ‘to prove or demonstrate’ (comp. Syr. in loc.) and in Acts xvi. 10, where it implies to ‘conclude’ or ‘draw a clear in- ference;’ ‘certi facti,’ Vulg., oroixa- Cbuevot, Chrys. pets Se K.7.A.] ‘but we have the mind of Christ,’ scil. we who are mvevparixol, So close is the union of Christ with the true believer, so truly does Christ dwell in him (Rom. viii. 10, Gal. ii. 20, Eph. iii. 17), and he in Christ (John xv. 4 sq.), that not merely Geiés tis vods (Cyril, ap. Cram. Cat.) but the very mind of Christ is vouchsafed to him by the Holy Ghost. On this ‘ unio mystica,’ and the sanctification which is its im- mediate consequence, see Rothe, Dogmatik, um. 2, §71, p. 250, Philippi, Glawbensl. tv. 1. p. 133, Hutter Redivivus, §116, p. 287, and comp. Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ons 2. 3. The reading Kuplov (for Xpicrod) is well supported (Lachm., with BD'FG; Aug., Boern., al.; Lat. Ff), but the probability of a conformation to the preceding Kupfov is so great that we seem fully justified, with Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, in retaining the Received Text. Ill. 1—4. LEzemplification of the foregoing principles in the labours of the Apostle at Corinth. I. Kayé] ‘And I too,’ acted on the principle above speci- fied; the «al suggesting that the Apostle was constrained to regard the Corinthians as Wuxixol, and to act as any other mvevuatixds must have acted towards them. The 7durv7Onv skilfully mitigates the feelings which might have been called out: Kad@s dé ele, 7d, ovK HdvvHOny, tva wh BdEn 51a pOdvoy adrots Td TeAEdTEpoy Mh cimeiv, Theoph.; see also Chrys. in loc. GAN Gs capKlvois] ‘but (was compelled to speak to you) as unto fleshly men ;’ the affirma- tive sentence naturally emerging out of the preceding negative one; see Jelf, Gr. §896. 9. The exact mean- ing of the term capxivos is slightly ELE RA ay eB 49 e a c “ > > ¢ 7 ¢c Oat vv ws TVEVpaTLKOLS GAN WS TapKiVvoLs, ws , > xX, bon in ¢e A > / > al vytiows ev XpioT@. yada vas erotica, ov Boda, 2 ovTe yap edvvacbe> add’ od8é ere vUV Sivacbe erL 3 2. The Received Text must be changed in this verse in three particulars, with Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. [in 1st and 3rd], Westc. and Hort. (1) The «al must be omitted before ot, on very clearly preponderating authority. (2) edvvac#e must be read instead of 75dvacGe, on greatly preponderating authority; and (3) odd instead of otre, on very greatly preponderating authority. Lachm., and Westc. and Hort place ér: in brackets, but on the sole uncial authority of B. doubtful. Besides this passage it is found (without any variation of read- ing) in 2 Cor. ili. 3, and (according to the best text) in Rom. vii. 14 and Heb. vii. 16. In these two latter passages and in the present verse it is deemed by Fritz. (Rom. 1. c.) and others as only a transcriber’s mis- take for capxixds. Others, admitting the reading, deny any real distine- tion between the adjectives. This, however, does not seem lexically cor- rect. Here, as usually, the termina- tion in -wos marks the fuller presence of the element or quality of the sub- stantive (see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 41. It. 19, and comp. Lobeck, Pathol. p. 200), and is apparently deliber- ately chosen. The Corinthians were regarded by the Apostle ®s capiuivot, —as, and as in the light of (on this use of &s, see note on Eph. v. 22), men of flesh; not merely men ethic- ally influenced by it (carnales) but wholly composed of it (carnei): see Trench, Synon. § 72, p.257, sq. (ed. 7), and also Hofmann in loc. (who regards Capkikds as equiv. to elya: Kata odpKa, and odpkivos to «iva: ev capkt), and Delitzsch, ow Heb. vii. 16. On the distinction between capxikds and Wuxikds, see notes on ver. 3. os vntlous é€v Xptot@] ‘as unto babes in Christ,’ opp. to TeAclois ev Xp. (Col. i, 28): further specification of the Spiritual state of the Corinthians ; they were, in relation to Christ, at the very commencement of spiritual life. Parallel expressions are cited from Rabbinical writers by Schoettg.in loc., and by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. (in loc.) ; comp. Buxtorf, Lew Talm. p. 962. The é€v Xpioré, as usually, denotes the sphere in which they were vj: they had been baptized and so were in Christ, but in reference to their progress (comp. Grot.) they were very babes. On the expression éy Xp., see notes on Gal. ii. 17, v. 6, Eph. i. 1, ii. 6, al., and see Hooker, Serm. 111. Vol. 111. p. 763, Martensen, Dogm. § 176, p. 325 (Transl.). 2. yada twas érética] ‘I gave you milk to drink,’--scil. elemen- tary teaching (arAovareépa bidackaria, Theoph.), or, in other words, roy rijs apxis TOU Xpirtod Adyov, Heb. vi. 1 ; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 2. The contrast is Bpaua (areped rpoph, Orig.), which suitably represents the reAcwrépa didackarla (Theoph.) and deeper teaching of evangelical truths. On the very intelligible zeugma (érdtica . . . Bp@ua), see Winer, Gr. § 66. 2, Wilke, N. T. Rhet. § 33. dd, p. 130; and on the meanings and con- struction of mori(w, the elaborate note of Valecken. Schol. Vol. 1. p. 140. ‘for ye were not yet strong enough ; ’ the verb being here used absolutely, as in earlier Greek (Plato, Meno, i ovTw yap €Svvacbe] oa yap oapKiKol €oTe. 50 MPOS KOPINOLOYS TIPOTH. 97 s > c cal nr omov yap ev vty Lhdos ka ¥ 7's 9 \ v » E€pls, OVX’ DAPKLKOL €OTE KAL KATA avOpwrov TEpl- 3. pis, obxl «.7.A.] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on what must be deemed clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds kat dixooracia after Epis. It may be admitted that it is not exactly easy to see how the words kal d:xo0racia came to be inserted, unless we ate to suppose that the insertion arose from some remembrance of Gal. v. 20. p. 77B, Xenoph. Anab. tv. 5. 11, al.), and not uncommonly in later Greek (1 Mace. v. 41, Polyb. Hist. 11. 49. 1), and marking generally their state of spiritual powerlessness ; ov divavTat, Sidte ov OéAovet TyEVMATI- xol elvat, Theoph.: so appy. Copt., Aith., Arm., and most modern com- mentators. GAN’ odSE Err viv Svvac0e] ‘nay nor even now are ye strong enough.’ Yet, as Meyer observes, we have in ch. xv. a clear case of Bp@ua, This, however, may be accounted for, not by the apolo- getic aspects of the chapter (ver. 12), but simply by the fact that Christ’s resurrection and, consequently, our resurrection was really an elemen- tary truth; the Apostle preached Tov "Inootv Kal thy avaotacw (Acts xvii. 18; see Meyer i loc.) to men that were even more v#mo than the Corinthians. On the formula adv’ ovde (‘at ne—quidem,’ or ‘ quin—ne quidem,’ Fritz. Mare. p. 157), see notes on Gal. ii. 3, where the ex- pression is shortly discussed. It may be observed that Westc. and Hort make these words commence a new paragraph. The sort of rhet- orical link between the ¢dévac0e and the dbvac0e that follows it seems to be too strong thus to be broken. 3. gapKikol) ‘carnal.’ The Apostle now passes to the more ethically distinctive and more really reproachful word. The distinction in meaning between this word and odpxwos has already been noticed bia TovTO on ver. I; it remains only to notice how it differs from wWuxirds, this being the epithet that would natur- ally have suggested itself from the closing verses of the last chapter. The difference would seem to be this. The Wuxinds is the natural man, and who, as such, is xwpls Xpiorod (Eph. ii. 12), and has never experienced the regenerating in- fluences of the Holy Ghost. The capkixds, however, is one who has received the ordinary gifts of the Spirit, but who, nevertheless has yielded to the power of the cdpé, in the great struggle (Gal. v. 17), and has become a kata odpka mepimatay. On the true meaning of capi, and so of capkixds, see notes and refer- ences on ch, i. 26, ow Gal. v. 16, and on Col. ii. 11. Strov yap] ‘for where,’—hardly so much as‘ whereas,’ Auth. (‘cum enim,’ Vulg.), the local idea still being distinctly traceable, both here and even 2 Pet. ii. 11, and the meaning being ‘in cases where ;’ so rightly, Bengel, ‘ubi.’ That the particle may sometimes have an ap- proximately causal sense cannot perhaps be denied (see exx. in Palm u. Rost, Lew. s. v.) ; where, however, the proper meaning can be main- tained it seems our duty to maintain it. tnAos Kal Epis] ‘envy and contention ;’ specified in equally close connexion, but in a different order, among the works of the flesh, in Gal. v. 20. The pre- Tr 4% 51 Lal y & Fa ) ‘ - > 4 TaTeTe ; oTav yap héyn Tis 'Eyo pev eu ITavdov, 4 4 ba | Neos , > »” Tg ETEPOS dé “Eya “Amo\No, ovdK avOpwiroi €ote ; T and Apollos are but labourers for God. I have laid the only foundation. 4 9S > > , toa , Ti obv €otw Atroddos ; TSE €oTW 5 What is built thereon will be sharply tested at the last day. 4. ovK &yvOpwrol éeore] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, the ov« resting on clearly, and the &v@pwro on greatly, preponderating authority: Rec., odx) capkixol eore. 5. Ti—r!} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- sent order is perhaps the more exact; marip yap 6 (ijAos Tis Epidos. Theoph. KATO GvO@pwtov wepitateite] ‘walk after the manner of men;’ ‘se- quuntur nature ductum,’ Calv. On the various meanings of kar& &vOpw- mov (‘humano more,’ Beng.), see Fritz. Rom. ur. 5, Vol. 1. p. 160; and on the metaphorical meaning of mepimareiy (‘course of life in its practical aspects and manifesta- tions’), see notes on Phil. iii. 18, and om 1 Thess. iv. 12: comp. also Suicer, Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 679. The gloss of Estius is thus perfectly correct, ‘ affectus humanos et car- nales in vita et actionibus suis osten- dere:’ the true idea being not merely capkika Kal avOpémiva Kal mpdorvera gpovey (Theoph.), but the manifes- tation of the same in the ‘agendi vivendique ratio.’ 4. Strav yap A€yn Tis] ‘ for when one saith:’ confirmation of the statement involved in the preceding question. The déray is obviously not ‘while’ (Auth.), but, as always in the N. T., retains its usual con- ditioned temporal sense; ‘in each case when such party spirit is shown are ye not verily men?’ comp. Hofmann in loc. eyo ev «.t.A.] ‘ID am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos. The Apostle here only specifies two par- ties (contrast ch. i. 12), not perhaps from any studied reference in what immediately follows to the differ- ences between those who claimed to be of the Apollos party and himself (Mey.), but, most probably, simply from the fact that he and Apollos had personally most to do with the Corinthian Church, and were thus the two names that it was most natural for him to use in illustration of the ¢jAos and épis specified in ver. 3; comp. ch. iv. 6. ovK GvOpwmot éore] ‘are ye not mere nen ?’—walkers kata tvOpwrov vers.3? That dy@pwmo here involves no depreciatory meaning (Hofm.) cannot be maintained in the face of the context. It is of course ad- mitted that the word does not necessarily imply any depreciatory meaning, even when closely asso- ciated with the expression kara iv- O6pwrov (compare Gal. iii. 15); but when the meaning of the kata ty- Opwmov, as here, is clearly specified by the context, and Gyv@pw7o., in a somewhat unusual question, imme- diately follows, all sound principles of interpretation appear to justify our assigning to the word in this second case the same meaning that it has in the first. In all such cases the shade of meaning is to be sought for, not in the word, but in the con- text: comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. vit. 2. 4. emeimep UvOpwrol eouev aud- TEpOL, 5-15. Specification of the relation Ez 52 IIPOS KOPINEIOYS TIPOQTH. Tlad\os ; Sudkovor Sv dv emurtevoate, Kal ExdoTw derating authority, correction being here especially probable: Rec., Tis— tis. The order ’AmoAA@s—TladAos is also adopted in the above-mentioned edd. on very greatly preponderating authority : Rec. inverts, and omits the second éerly on clearly insufficient authority. Lastly aa’ 4 is found in Ree. before didkovor, but rejected by the above-mentioned edd. on very greatly pre- ponderating authority. between Apollos and himself, and thence of the duties and responsi- bilities of Christian teachers gener- ally. 5. Te otv «.7.A.] ‘ What thenis Apollos? and what is Paul?’ the rf conveying more broadly and generally than the mase. (comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 5, Bernhardy, Synt. vil. 4, p. 336) the abstract idea of the subject referred to, ‘What is there really in either one or the other?’ comp. notes on Gal. iii. 19. The exact reference of oty is perhaps slightly doubtful. It certainly might be referred to the clause immediately preceding (Hofm.), and so be held to justify Hofmann’s rendering of the (‘Menschen, und _ nicht geringeres ’) in ver. 4, but is much more naturally taken, in its common retrospective sense (‘ redit ad institu- tum,’ Beng.), in reference to the whole tenor of the preceding verse,— ‘there being such party-spirit, and so openly displayed, I must ask the question: ’ see Donalds. Gr. § 548, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 717 sq. and the notes and reff. on Gal. iii. 5, Phil. ii. 1. StdKovor] ‘ ministers,—and so not heads of sects or parties; ‘non autores fidei vestre,sed ministri duntaxat,’Erasm. in loc. On the meaning and true derivation of didkovos, see notes on Eph. iii. 7. ‘through whom ye believed :’ ‘per quos, non i” quos,’ Beng. The general term é¢torevoate refers pri- marily to the first introduction into avOpwrot bi’ Sv emiotretoate] the faith (Rom. xiii. 11), but, as the context seems to suggest, may also refer to subsequent stages. It is proper, however, to say that if this had been intended by the Apostle to be very distinctly marked, he would have used the perf. wemored- kate: comp. I John v. 10, 2 Tim. i. 12, al. Kal éxdote x-T.A.] ‘and as the Lord gave unto each;’ the xal having its fullest force (‘ et quidem,’ Kiihner, Gr. § 521. 2), and adding a further detail to what was already specified: see in ref. to this and other uses of xa’, the notes on Phil. iv. 12, and comp. also notes on Gal. vi. 16. For exx. of a similar position of the ékdorw, comp. ch. Vil (37, and “Rom: xii:7s'-itwes obviously due to the stress which the Apostle wished to lay on the added fact that each of these d:dkover had his specially given powers; ‘ministri Dei sunt, iique diversa habentes ministeria,’ Estius; ovd€ abtd Td uipdy Td THs Siakovlas mapa éaut@y exouev, GAAa Kal TodTO mapa tov Kuplov eiAnpamey BAAS GAA@ nétpw, Theoph. To refer éxdctw to the hearers, se. each one of those who believed (see Alf.), is out of harmony with the context, which clearly only refers to the teachers,— the ‘doctores de quibus hic agitur,’ Vorst. The exact reference of 6 Kupws is perhaps slightly doubtful: the context (ver. 6, 9, 10), however, seems to decide in favour of the ref. being to God (Chrys., al.), rather j , Il. 6, 7, 8. 53 ws 6 Kipuos edwxev. eya épvtevrs, Aroddas érd- 6 TiITEV, GANA 6 Oeds nVEavev’ WaTE OVTE 6 puTEedwY 7 > , ¥ e , ’ > ¢ 27 , ¢ €otiv Te ovte 0 ToTilwy, ad\N 6 avéavwv Oeds. 6 8 bes , \ dutevav S€ Kal 6 than to Christ, as Theoph., Maier, al.; comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4. 6. épirevoa] planted, scil. the faith of Christ in the Corinthian Church; mp&ros katéBadov roy Adyor, Chrys. The faith of the Corinthians is regarded as a plant which the Apostle placed in the earth, and which was watered by Apollos. Hof- mann (in loc.) objects to this separ- ation between the acts, but certainly without sufficient reason: in the inspired narrative (Acts xviii. 27- xix. 1) differences of agency seem clearly implied; see ver. 27 (I. c.), ouvyeBaAeTOo moAv Tois memioTEevKdoL 51a Tis xapiros, where the latter verb and tense is certainly noticeable. éméticev] ‘watered:’ ‘rigare est doctrine Christiane jam plantate et fundate superaddere precepta, quibus conservetur et augeatur,’ Menoch. in loc. ‘was giving the growth :’ imperfect ; the acts of the ministers are ex- pressed by aorists, the continued gracious power of God by the more suitable tense; comp. Wordsw. in loc. The distinction is not marked in any of the Vy. and is even obliter- ated by Theoph., 6 cbs niénoev bas. 7. dare] * So then,’—consequence immediately flowing from the pre- ceding statement, the particle, as usual, denoting ‘ consecutionem ali- cujus rei ex antecedentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 771._. On the difference between éore with indic., as here, and with the infin., see Donalds. Gr. § 596, Kiihner, Gr. § 586. 1, and notes on Gal. ii. 13. niéavev] F Y = 4 ~~ ‘\ Totilwv ev eiow, EkaoTos O€ TOV éorty ri] ‘is anything (whatever) ;’ not merely ‘ anything of importance’ (comp. Acts. v. 36, Gal. ii. 6, and notes zm loc.), but really ‘ anything at all,’ when compared with 6 aitdvey @<és: so rightly Chrys., oddév ear. GAN’ 6 adEdvav Ocdsg! ‘but God that giweth the growth,’ sc. ‘is every- thing, —the grammatical supple- ment being éeori 71, but the obvious contextual supplement being ra mayra, ‘adeo, quia solus, omnia,’ Beng.; comp. ch. vii. 19, and for examples of this very intelligible brachylogy, see Jelf, Gr. § 893, Wilke, Rhetorik, § 32. a, p. 122. 8. 56 mutetav S$ «.7t-A.] ‘ Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one,’—scil. in reference to their ministerial duty (katd& thy baroupyiar, Theod.), and the oneness of spirit (Hofm.) which a faithful discharge of it necessarily implied: transition from the workers and their work to the consideration of their rela- tions to each other, and, subse- quently, of their recompense. The first clause of the verse states that though different in the external form of their working they are one in the inward principle of it (comp. Theod.): the second clause adds the further statement, that though thus one, yet that they will have rewards pro- portioned to the nature and amount of individual labour. éxaotos Sé x.T.A.] ‘ yet eachone shall receive his own reward according to his own toil : ? wh poBod, bre elroy, Ste €v cit... . emel mévay Everey OvK Eloty, GAAG EkagTos Toy TdLoy maby AZ,WeTai, Chrys. The emphasis obviously rests 4 MPOS KOPINGIOYS TPOTH. 9 tov pro bdv AynprpeTat KaTa TOV LOvoY KOTFOV. Ocov yap expev ovvepyol* Oeov yewpy.ov, Ocod oixkodopy 10 €oTE. Kara tiv xdpw Tov Ocod tiv dobet- adv poi as coos apyxitextov Oewédvov EOnka, addos 10. €0nxa] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority ; Rec., ré@e:xa,—a correction perhaps designed to mark more precisely the time of the act referred to. ~ on the twice repeated Y.ov: indivi- duality in toil will have individuality in reward. On the meaning and deri- vation of «d7os (‘ molestus labor’), see notes on 1 Thess. i. 3, ii. 9. It is probably here used in preference to épyov for the reason alluded to by Theophylact,—tl yap ef €pyov ovk érédcoev ; exotriage 5€: comp. Beng. 9. Ocot yap x.7.A.] ‘ For we are God’s fellow-labourers,'—God’s, and so certain of a reward according to our works and deservings; comp. Rom. ii. 659: confirmation, not of the whole preceding verse (Osiand.), but of the assertion immediately preceding, the emphasis obviously resting on the word @cod, both in this and in the succeeding clauses. De Wette regards the present verse rather as a summary of what had preceded, but thus obscures the force of the yap, which here certainly seems to be confirmatory rather than explanatory. On this latter use see notes on Gal. ii. 6. It is hardly necessary to add that the elevating statement @cod gvvepyol cannot here possibly mean ‘ fellow-labourers for, or, in reference to, God,’ but, in ac- cordance with regular and gramma- tical usage, simply ‘ Dei adjutores,’ Vulg,, Copt. (‘socii operatores’), Aith., al.; comp. 1 Thess, iii. 2, Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21, Phil, 11, 25, al., and see Bernhardy, Synt. mm. 49, p. 171, Jelf, Gr. § 519. The ex- pression is well elucidated by Mark Xvi. 20; comp. Estius in loc. Ocod yedpytov k-7.A.] ‘ yeare God’s field, God’s building,’ scil. His field in which we labour, His building which we strive to raise; the first metaphor being in accordance with the foregoing imagery (ver. 6-8), the latter serving to introduce that which follows. The word yewpy.ov (‘ ver- bum late patens, agrum, hortum, vineam complectens,’ Beng.) is here obviously in its concrete sense,— not ‘agricolatio,’ Erasm. (compare Clarom., Vulg., Copt., Arm., al. ; see Keclus. xxvii. 6), but ‘ager’ (&ypos, Chrys.), in accordance with the associated conerete subst. oikodoun : comp. Prov. xxiv. 30, xxxi. 6, and see the examples in Steph. Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 602 (ed. Hase and Dind.). The general drift of the verse is rightly explained by Chrys. as a further implied argu- ment for unity; ‘if ye are God’s field and building there ought to be unity and not parties and factions’; see also Hofm. i loc. IO, KaTa THY xapLv K.T-A.] * According to the grace which was given unto me, generally as an Apostle, and specially as a founder of the Corinthian Church;’ see Hofm. i loc., and comp, Rom. xv, 20, The Apostle desires prominently to mark that all his wisdom and power came from God (‘refert ad Deum omnia,’ Calv,), and that it was owing to thatalone that he was IE "6, 713-17, 72. 59 1 a “A 4 A , A 3 dé erouKoSopet. exactos d€ BdetEeTw TAS eroLKodo- a / ‘ »” > \ , ~ ‘ pet. Oepédvov yap addov ovdels SvvaTar Oetvar Tapa 11 Tov Kelpevov, Os €oTW “Incots Xpiords. et S€ Tis 12 II, "Incots Xpiorés}] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre- ponderating authority ; Lachm., Xpiords “Inoods: Rec. Inoois 6 Xpiords, but on the authority of only a few cursive mss. enabled to do the work of the copds apxitéxtwy; see Chrys. and Theoph. im loc. &s copds apxitéxtov] ‘as a skilful master builder,’ acting in such a character ; the @s marking the aspect under which he sought to do his work (see notes on Eph. v. 22, Col. iii. 23), and the cops having here its de- rivative, but by no means uncommon, meaning, ‘ peritus,’ Beng., al. ; iAd- rexvos, Hesych. ; comp. Isaiah iii. 5, Exod. xxxv. 10, and the exx. col- lected by Wetst. in loc. OewéArrov €OnKka | ‘ I laid the fownda- tion ;’? comp. Acts xviii. I sq. The word @eueAwos is properly an adjec- tive (@euéAror Al@or, Aristoph. Av. 1137), but is used most commonly absolutely, not only in the plural, Thucyd. Hist. 1. 93, but, as here, in the singular ; see Eph. ii. 20, 1 Tim. vi. 19. The gender (@euéAios or OeueAvov) is often indeterminate ; here, however, it is clearly mascu- line; see ver. It. The OeuéeAvos is here, as the context shows, Jesus Christ (ver. 11): on Him, preached objectively and historically, and ac- cepted in the heart subjectively, rested in security the Corinthian Church. &AXog SE érrotxoSopet] ‘and (the copulative element in this particle here pre- dominating ; see Kiihner, G7. § 532. 1) another builds thereupon ;’ this ‘other’ being any teacher who fol- lowed the Apostle and essayed to build up the Corinthian Church. The referenee is not specially to Apollos, but is studiously left un- defined and general; ‘ aliws, quisquis est,’ Beng. mAs étrotkoSo0pe1| ‘how he builds therewpon;’ not ‘quam saptenter; quam affabre’ (Beng.), but simply, with what materials, ‘qualem doctrinam fidei in fundamento posite superaddat,’ Kstius; see ver. I2, where the materials are specified. ‘ Ostendit rem esse periculi plenam,’ Grot. II. OewéAvtov yap x.7.A.] ‘ Hor other foundation can no man lay:? reason for the foregoing warning and the reference simply to the emotkodomourtes ; it was because there could not be any other founda- tion than one, that attention has to be directed exclusively to the super- structure. De Wette regards the yap as suggestive of the reference of mas (ver. 10), not so much to the materials (see above), as to the idea of a possible alteration of the founda- tion: ‘in building thereupon let him not alter the foundation, for &e.’ This, however, does not seem in harmony with what follows; in ver. 12 it is simply the materials built upon the foundation that form the special subject of consideration ; see Maier and Hofm. in loc. mapa tov Kelpevov] ‘ beside that (already) laid ;’ not by the Apostle in this particular case (De Wette, al.), but, as the whole context seems to suggest, by Him who has laid it for every case, scil. by God. The 56 MPOS KOPINGIOYS MPOTH. 5 ~ > ‘ ¢ > , €voukooopec emt Tov Oepéduov, xpvoiov, apyvpvor, , , ¢ / / c Ua x 13 AiMouvs Tysiovs, Eda, ydpTov, Kaddpnv, ExdoTov TO 12. tov Oeuedcoy] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rodrov, xpualov, &pytpiov) So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderant authority: Rec., Lachm., xpua6v, upyupov. change to the neutral term Keluevov seems clearly to confirm this refer- ence: the one foundation was ever lying ready, and it was used by each founder of a Church in each indi- vidual case. When St Paul preached Christ crucified and risen to the Corinthians, he used for them the one foundation on which alone their Church, or any other Church, could safely rest. On this use of mapa after %AAos, comp. Winer, Gr. 36. 2, and the exx. collected by Stallbaum on Plato, Phileb. 51 v. *Incots Xprotés] ‘ Jesus Christ ;’ the personal Christ,who died, rose, and ascended into heaven, and who is in Himself the substance and summary of all teaching; comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 32. b, Vol. 11. p. 32 (Transl.). 12. el 8 «.7.A.] ‘But if any man buildeth ;’ continuation of the com- parison and contrast between the work of the builder and that of the layer of the foundation, the de re- taining some tinge of its primary etymological force (‘ further,’ ‘in the second place’), and marking more specifically the transition of thought to the émoimodéunois: see Donalds. Crat. § 155, and notes on Gal. iii. as In reference to the general tenor of the verse it may be said that most expositors seem now agreed in considering that the refer- ence is not to different buildings, but to a single building of which the different portions consist of different work and materials, some valuable and lasting (xpugiov, «.7.A.), some but of little value and perishable (EvAa, «.7.A.); see Meyer in loc., De Wette, al. Secondly, the materials must apparently refer, not to the persons taught (Severian, al.; comp. Hofm., and even, to some extent, Beng.), which seems to confuse the imagery, but to the matter and sub- stance of the different teachings,— here roughly grouped into the two classes— whether ‘doctrina solida, sincera’ (Est.), on the one hand, or ‘falsa et sublesta’ (Beng.), on the other. The reference of Chrys., Theod., and most of the patristic commentators to the moral fruits of the hearers (apet) Biov, Chrys.) is plausible, but open to this grave objection,—that the context seems exclusively to direct attention to the moral worth of something appertain- ing to the teachers, and not to that of something appertaining to the taught. We, therefore, with some of the older (Theodorus, al.) and most modern expositors (Calv., Neand., De W., al.) refer the ma- terials to the doctrines and teachings of the spiritual builders: see the short but clear comment of Theodorus (Cram. Caten. p. 61), and a sensible sermon by Saurin, Sermons, Vol. vu. p- 336 sq. (Paris, 1835). ALOovs TLuLlovs] ‘ costly stones,’ scil. marble, ‘ lapides nobiles,’ Beng., not ‘gems’ (Copt., al.; comp. Isaiah liv. II, 12, and Rev. xxii. I9 sq., to which Origen in loc. here refers), the reference being more naturally to the usual materials of a building ; TER comp. Grot. in loc., who, however, goes unnecessarily into detail. 13. éxdorov] ‘each man’s,’ —not without distinct emphasis. The Apostle marks the individual re- sponsibility attaching itself to each teacher; comp. ver. 10, €xkacros 5€ BAerérw mGs eroikodouet; see also ver. 8. 4 yap Awépa SndrAdoeu] ‘for the day shall declare it;’ scil. the day of judgment, 7 rijs Kpicews, Theod., ‘universalis judicii,’ Est.; compare Heb. x. 25, 2 Tim. i. 18, al. Other references that have been suggested, viz.— (qa) the destruc- tion of Jerusalem (Hamm., Lightf., Schoettg.),—(b) the special time when the truth will become apparent (Caly., al.),—(c) time, in its course (Grot., al.), or lastly, (d) ‘dies tribulationis ’ (Augustine, al.), —- all distinctly fall short of the solemn reference to the true time of recom- pense (Seamérov Theodorus), and day of final mani- festation and award. Even Hof- mann, who seems often to be biassed against generally received exegesis, here adopts the current interpreta- tion. amoxahtrretar] ‘ because it is re- vealed in fire,’ scil. ‘in it,’ as the all-surrounding element (Bernhardy, Synt. p. 209; comp. 2 Thess. i. 8, év pAoy) mupds) ; reason why the day will so declare the work and teach- ing. To refer the verb either to 7rd épyoy in the first clause of the verse (Theoph., Neand. 2), or to Kvpios, mentally suggested by 7 7u<€pa (Beng.), seems distinctly inadmissible. The former reference would be tauto- logous; the second would import an idea not patent in the context. The moo thus cannot be any antecedent gpavévtos Kup-.ou, Stu €v tupl 13: 57 épyov pavepov yernoetary 1 yap HLépa Syrdcet, 9 5 ‘\ >] -. ~ OTL €v TUPL QTOKAAUTTETAL ‘\ c , \ » Kat EKAOTOV TO eEpyov purgatorial fire (comp. Neand.), nor any metaphorical fire (‘Spiritus Domini, qui examine suo probat,’ Calv..—who has thoroughly failed in this passage), but, simply and contextually, that associated with the jucpa (2 Thess. l.c.), sc. ‘ignis con- flagrationis,’ Est. This fire will be, by the nature of the case, ‘ pro- batorius,’ comp. August. HLnchirid. cap. 68); it will try (Soxudcoe:), as the natural fire tries, and will con- sume whatever cannot stand the test; see Saurin, Serm. Vol. vu. p. 348, and compare the curious and suggestive comments of Burnet, State of Departed, ch. vi. p. 147 sqq. The present amrorad. is what is called the ‘ ethical’ present, and marks the solemn certainty of the issue; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 54. 2, p. 91, and notes on Eiph. v. 5. k.7.A.] ‘and each man’s work, of what sort it is, the fire itself shall try;’ the éxdorov, as above, main- taining its prominence, and the clause itself carrying out further the statement in the first member of the verse, —‘ the work shall become manifest, and the fire shall test.’ It is doubtful whether épyov is to be considered as a nom. (Mey., al.) or accus. (Syz., Copt., al.). The latter seems simpler and is in closer har- mony with the connexion of the opening clause. The aitd marks that the fire by its own proper action, apart from all other agencies, will apply the test. That this test will involve something of a purify- ing character (contrast Beng.) can hardly be denied (consider 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, and comp. Teaching of Apostles, 16), but that it is ‘ purgatorial’ in Kal ExaoTOU 58 TIPOS KOPINOIOYS TPOTH. € lalla > ‘ A - e. , ¥ ‘ 14 Omotev €oTw Td Tp adTo SoKyaoe. Et TWos Td ¥ a ee. , ‘ , ¥ 15 €pyov pevet 0 éermKoddpnoer, probov Ajpiperau* et » TWos TO Epyov KataKkajceTat, CnniwOyoerat, avTos 13. 7) wip aité] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on preponderating authority, the omission being much more likely than the insertion: Rec. omits abré. the commonly received sense (Est.) is inconsistent with the reference of épyov, and with the whole tenor of the context. 14. et tivog «.7.A.] ‘If any man’s work shall abide ;’ the issues of the Soxmacta and its results in each case. The future pevet (not never, Rec.) with ei marks the issue as something regarded purely con- ditional (‘ ei cum indice. nihil significat preter conditionem,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 455),—if it shall so happen, be the cases many or few, likely to happen or the reverse; comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, and notes on Gal. 105 The construction of «i with a future often approximates very closely to that of éay with the subj., but still in most cases seems to present some slight shade of difference. Perhaps the following distinctions will be found in practice to be correct. When the hypo- thesis is connected simply with that which is predicated by the verb,— then ef is used with pres. indic. ; when, however, the idea of futwrity, or of the possibility of that which is predicated, is also involved,—then, in the former case «i is used with future indic.; in the latter, eay with the subjunctive; see the com- ments and exx. in Kriiger, Sprachl. § 54, 9. prodoyv Ajpwerar] ‘ he shall receive wages,’ seil. for his work, as an upbuilding teacher. This pio@ds shall come from God (Mey.), as it is God’s oikodouy (ver. 9) on which the labour has been bestowed. The word piobds has here, in accordance with the context, not the more general and derivative meaning of ‘reward’ (Auth.), but its primary meaning of ‘merces;’ Phot. é¥éviov. The word is apparently connected with the Zend. mizdha (pay) and the Goth. mizd6 ; comp. Fick, Vergleichendes Worterb. Part 1. p. 155. 15. Katakaroetat] ‘shall be burnt up,’ scil. by the wip which shall accompany the Lord’s presence (2 Thess. i. 7) and try each man’s work (ver. 13); ov otce: Tod mupds thy piyny, Chrys. On the form katakanoerat (Attice, katakavOijcerat, comp. Thomas Mag. p. 511. The same form occurs 2 Pet. iii. 10. tnprwOicerar] ‘he will suffer loss;’ simply and generally,— de- trimentum patietur,’ Vulg., Copt. ; comp. Syr. The accus. micbdy is supplied by De W., Meyer (so also Zth., Theod.), in accordance with the prevailing structure of the verb (comp. Matth. xvi. 26, Mark viii. 36, Phil. iii, 8, and exx. in Steph. Thesaur. 8. v., ed. Hase and Dind.), but here, as it would seem, un- necessarily ; see Hofm. in loc. It is not so much the loss of the picAds that the Apostle wishes to mark, as the fact of loss and detriment generally, ‘damno aflicietur,’ Erasm.; comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8. The contrasted relation with cw@7cera: is also thus better preserved; comp. Chrys. i loc., who paraphrases the word by yuuvos elvat aopadelas, avtos St cwOrjceTtar] ‘ but he him- self will be saved :’ though his work ti a ees i a 59 Sé cwoOnoerat, ovTas S€é ws Sua Tupds. Destroy not the tem- ple of God through Ly lal Ovx oldaTre OTL vads Oeod é€ate 16 your contentiousness and vainglory. Remember your heritage. will be burnt up, and he himself left naked and lacking, he will still personally be saved, as being one who had built on the only true foundation; comp. Beng. The re- ference of the verb cd¢eorOa: is here obviously to final salvation (cwrnpla Wwuxay, I Pet. i. 5), THs owrnplas akiwbjcerat, Theod. The interpreta- tion of Chrys. and some of the Greek expositors (not, however, Theodorus, Theodoret, or Severian) cos tnpn- Onoera, scil. cre ev TG wupl Kata- xatea@at, Theoph., is obviously out of all harmony with the context, and, as Meyer in loc. rightly observes, at variance both with the present re- stricted reference of mip, and with the prevailing meaning of od (ec0a in passages such as the present; comp. Rom. v.9. It is hardly ne- cessary to add that the tense does not here impart any idea of mere possibility (Theod.-Mops., Grot., al. ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 40. 6), but, as above, simply states what, on the given hypothesis, will be the issue; compare Wilke, Rhetorvik, § 8o. a, De 257. ottas S as Sta amupds}] ‘yet so as through fire,’— as through surrounding and en- circling flames, ‘ erit sicut adustus igne,’ Aith.; the structure will be consumed, but the builder will be saved,—yet only through the flames which are consuming that which he has built ; comp. Wilke, Rivet. § 26.a, p. 110. So BGengel, who rightly illustrates the tenor of the clause, though by a different image,— ut mercator naufragus, amiss’ merce et lucro, servatur per undas.’ The o’Tws—s specifies, with studied exactness, how, and how only, the escape will be effected; see ch. iv. 1, ix, 26, Eph. v. 33, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 60. 5. It does not seem ne- cessary, with Hofmann, al., to regard the wdp in this verse as different from that specified in ver. 13. In both cases it is the fire of the last day, alike testing and judicial, ‘ignis diei novissimi et judicii divini,’ Beng. The whole passage, as Alf. rightly suggests, should be com- pared with Mal. iii. 1 sqq., and iv. I sq. 16-23. Warning against the de- structive nature of their contentions and the vainglory from which they sprang. 16, Ovx otSaTe K.T.A.] ‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God:’ appeal to a well-known, though forgotten, truth (Rom. vi. 16, 1 Cor. v. 6, vi. 16, ix. 13, 24; ‘subindicat de re com- pert&é se apud eos loqui,’ Calv.), suggested by, and resting upon, the tenor of the foregoing declarations ; they were the ofxv50u) Ocod (ver. 9),— was such an oikodouy to be marred and destroyed by the popia and party spirit of sectarian teachers ? The reference is thus, not to the subject which immediately precedes (Hofm., al.), still less to the subject of the incestuous person (Chrys., Theod.), but to the subject and tenor of the early part of the chapter. The verses immediately preceding are a partial expansion of the latter part of ver.9 ; this being concluded, the Apostle appears to revert to his primary and leading thought ; ‘ redit ad comparationem cceptam supra, a qué ad alia quedam, affinia tamen, deflexerat,’ Grot. So rightly De 60 IIPOS KOPINOIOY2 TPOTH. lal nw lal 5 Lal Lal 17 Kal TO IIvedpa tod Ocod oixet ev viv; et Tis Tov vadv Tod Ocod Pbcipa, POepet TovTov 6 Ocds’ Wette, Mey., and appy. the majority of modern expositors. vadg Ocod] Not ‘a temple of God’ (Copt., al.; comp. Hofm.), but, in accordance with the tenor of the context, and of the Apostle’s imagery elsewhere (Eph. ii. 21, comp. 2 Cor. vi. 16),-‘the temple of God;’ the idea not being that of several different but of one ideal temple, of which each individual Church is a type and adumbration. So rightly Origen, éopév vads ot maytes €is* Exdorov nuay Aidov Tiwds évtos ard Tod vaod: comp. De W. and Meyer in loc. In cases like the present grammatical considera- tions cannot be safely pressed. Though the article is not expressed, it may be deemed latent, either (a) because @co0d the associated gen. is anarthrous (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 1), or (b) because a predicative auxiliary, or similar, verb precedes (comp. Apollon. de Synt. 1. 31, p- 64, ed. Bekk.), which, though not by any means necessarily involving the omission of the article, is certainly often followed, in general passages like the present, by an anarthrous though contextually definite sub- stantive: see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 3. Where the definiteness of the subst. is designed to be spe- cially marked, then the article is inserted ; see examples in Winer, Gr. § 18. 7. Kal rd Mvetpa «.7-A.] ‘and that (as a further and illustrative fact) the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ;’ not necessarily here, ‘in you’ as individuals (though that is a blessed and undoubted truth; comp. Rom. vill. 9, 11, 26, 1 +Cor-* vi. 19, al., and see Rothe, Dogmatik, vaol, 1. § 69 sq., 11. § 107), but, in accord- ance with the more general re- ference of the context, ‘ among you,’ ‘in your midst;’ comp. Ezek. XXXVil. 27, Kal Eoro 7} KaTacKhvwols pov éy avrots,—a passage not im- probably in the thoughts of the Apostle while writing these words. The Holy Ghostis ever the indwelling Schechinah in the Christian Church; see Herzog, Hmcycl. Vol. xm. p. 478, and comp. Martensen, Dogm. § 183, p. 333 (Transl.). For a valuable sermon on this verse, see Barrow, on the Creed, Serm. xxxtv. Vol. vi. p. 1 sqq., and, on the work of the Holy Spirit, Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 129, Vol. Iv. p. 159 sqq. On this adjunctive use of kal, by which a further fact is added to enhance or illustrate what precedes, comp. notes on ver. 5, and Winer, Gr. § 53. 3. The order & tui oiket is adopted by Westc. and Hort (Treg. marg.), on the au- thority of BP and some good cursives, and is certainly worthy of consideration, as the more em- phatic position of év iuty may lave been here designed and original, but corrected by copyists. 17. et tis «.7.A.] ‘If anyone destroys the temple of God,’ scil. by polluting it, defiling it, or in any way injuring it; comp. Deyling, Obs. Sacr. Vol. u. p. 505 sq. The verb here has thus not merely an ethical (Severian, Beng., al.; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3, Rev. xix. 2), but a physical and material sense. Out- ward and actual injury, however brought about, will be punished by what is no less real and outward ; see below. p0epet] ‘will destroy,,—emphatic (as its TEL Hao 61 ce bY X lal lal Y ld > Lg , > oO y@p VaOoS TOU Ocov aytos €OTL, OLTWES EOTE Upets. Mnbdets éavtov eEatrardtw* et Tus SoKxet 18 5 lal A 7A , ‘\ codos eivat €v Uy Ev TO AlOVYL TOUT, LwPdOS YE position shows), and _ predicative ; ‘disperdet,’ Vulg., ‘destruet,’ Syr., ‘perdet,’ Copt., dmoAct Chrys. The exact meaning of the verb is slightly doubtful. It may here have a spiritual reference ; but, in a sort of ‘jocus communis’ like the present, seems more naturally to maintain its primary and physical sense ; comp. Grotius, in loc. The whole verse obviously has a spiritual ap- plication ; the words, however, taken per se have in both clauses only their physical meaning. Under any circumstances, such glosses as ‘ gra- vissime puniet,’ Schleusn., are dis- tinctly inadmissible. The reading a’tov (Lachm.) is fairly supported, but very clearly inferior in external authority to the text. Gytos] ‘holy,—and so not to be profaned without punishment fall- ing on the profaner. The epithet (almost an ‘epitheton solemne,’ comp. L.XX, Psalm v. 7, x. 5, Hab. ii. 20) supplies the reason on which the declaration in the first member of the clause is based. The sup- plement, 6 5€ memopvevjevos BEBndos (Chrys.), is in accordance with the view taken of those verses by most of the Greek expositors, but is inconsistent with that above. ottivés éote tywets] ‘ the which [se. holy] are ye,’ not ‘quod,’ Vulg., but ‘ quales,’ Maier,—the quantitative pronoun having here its proper and primary meaning; see Kriiger, Sprachl. 51.8, and notes on Gal. iv. 23. The rea- soning then will be: God destroys the destroyer of His temple because the temple is holy; but ye are holy; adopted therefore whosoever destroys you (‘per schismata, ex mundi sapientié,’ Beng.), him will God destroy. The pronoun may grammatically be re- ferred to vads (see Winer, Gr. § 24. 3), but such a connexion would simply be a reiteration of ver. 16, and would also hint at a plurality of temples, unless the pronoun be referred to the whole clause,— ‘which kind of holy temple are ye,’—a possible, but certainly less simple, view of the passage than that which would simply limit the pronoun to the foregoing emphatic epithet. 18. pnSels Eaurdv k.t.A.] ‘ Let mo man deceive himseif,—by any false estimate of himself (r@ doxetv gopos elyat): exhortation suggested by the implied reference to the false teachers in the preceding verse. The two prevailing errors were self- conceit (ver. 18-20), and party confi- dence (ver. 21 sq.); against both of these the Apostle now warns his readers. On the form éfarardy, comp. notes on 1 Tim. ii. 14. et tig SoKet «.7.A.] Sif any man thinks that he is wise ;’ not ‘ vide- tur,’ Vulg., Auth., but ‘ putat,’ Syr., Copt., comp. Arm.,—the point of this admonitory exhortation being against the moral danger, not of a man seeming to be wise, but of his deeming that he was so; comp. Gal. vi. 3, and below, ch. viii. 2, xiv. 37, where the verb has the same subjective reference: see Bengel in loc. év tptv] ‘among you ;’ not connected immediately with doxet (Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm.), but with codds elvya (Clarom.), it 62 IPOS KOPINOIOYS TMPOTH. 19 véo0w, va yévntar codds. n yap godia Tov , , / ‘ “a “A > id A , KOO LOU Orie popia Tapa To Oew eotiv’ yeE- , ‘ lal ypamta. yap O Spaoaopevos ToVs Goods ev TH being among his fellows that his self-esteem sought especially to show itself; d:ecrefAaro eimm@y, ev iuiv, Severian. The following words, év TO aldve TtovrTy, are then added to the whole clause, as defining the general sphere in which the sup- posed self-conceit was displayed,— ‘in this world,’ and so under trans- itory and imperfect circumstances (comp. ch. i. 20, ii. 6 sq.) which mark the ddxcnos as additionally idle and mistaken. Two other con- structions have been suggested,— (a) with copdés (Grot. al.; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 17), and (b) with the words that follow (Chrys., al.; see Hofm. i loc.); but the order of words is obviously against the former, and the natural antithesis (copds—pwpés) and balance of clauses against the latter. On the meaning of aidv, as partially distinguishable from kéopuos, see notes om Eph. 1. 255 pwpds yevecba] let him become a fool, ‘ stultus fiat,’ Vulg. ; let him get rid of his false con- ception of himself, and receive the preaching of Christ crucified (ch. i. 18, 23) in its simplicity, that so he may veritably become wise; tiv &w copiay atiunodrw, iva KTHoOnTAL THY de‘av, Theoph. 19. * yap aopla x.7.A.] ‘ For the wisdom of this world is foolishness ; ’ reason for the foregoing exhortation. Such wisdom od udvoy obdéy cuvTeAci, GAAG Kal eumodicer, Chrys. This copla tod K‘ouov tovrov is that specified in ch. i. 20, the so-called wisdom and philosophy of the then non-Christian world. Tapa T@ OcG) ‘in the sight or Judgment of God,’ ‘apud Deum,’ Vulg.; comp. Rom. ii. 13, xii. 16, Acts xxvi. 8, al., and see Winer, Gr. § 48. d, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 35. The general idea of nearness, closeness to (compare Donalds. Cratyl. § 177, Pott, Etym. Forsch., Part 1. p. 463, ed. 2), seems to pass naturally into that of mental closeness, and thence of cognisance of that which is thus in juxta- position. On the local meaning of mapa with the dative, see also notes on ch. xvi. 2, and on the subject generally (‘the wisdom of this world’), a sermon by South, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 137 sqq. yéypamrat yap] Confirmation of the fore- going clause from Scripture. The passage which follows is from Job v. 13. It differs from the LXX (6 KaraAapBdvwy rods aopors ev Th povnce avtav), but expresses with equal, if not greater, verbal accuracy the meaning of the Hebrew DD qwa oN3h 505, especially in re- gard of the verb: see below. 6 Spacodpevos] ‘he that catcheth or who catcheth,’—an imperfect con- struction, the words in the original being part of a sentence. Hence the participle ; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, andcomp. Heb. i.7. The passage con- firms the trnth of the foregoing de- claration, by showing how truly such wisdom must be folly, when God uses it as a very snare (sce Gesen. Thesaur. s. v.35) to catch those who display it; rots oixefots bmAots avtTovs xetpovmevos, Chrysostom. The meaning of the verb (very rare in the active) is ‘prehendere,’ ‘manu corripere’ (Hesychius, kparety: see TH. LO. 205 “O'F- 63 Tavoupyta avT@V* Kat Tad Kvpwos ywooKer Tovs 20 nr ty iv 4 Suatoyrrpovs TOV Gopar, OTL eiot para. “Note 21 pnoets Kavydobw év avO parrots ° TAVTA yap ULOV the numerous exx. in Steph. Thesawr. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 1671), and appears to be connected with a stem dhragh {hold fast]: see Fick, Vergleich. Worterb. Part 1.p. 369. It is com- monly joined with the gen., but occasionally (Herod. mr. 13; comp. Suid. s.v.) with the accusative. twavoupyta] ‘craftiness,’ ‘ astutia,’ Vulg., Syr., al. Meyer appositely cites Plato, Menex. p. 247, as mark- ing the difference between ravoupyia and copa, viz. macd Te éemioTHun xwpiComevyn Sikaoctyns Kal ris XAAns apeTis mavoupyia, ov aodpla, paiverat. The word is scarcely a ‘ vox media’ (Grot.; ‘Allbetriebsamkeit,’ Ewald) ; at any rate here, as elsewhere in the N. T., ‘in deteriorem partem acci- pitur,’ Schleusn.; see Luke xx. 23, 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3, Eph. iv. 14, and comp. Aristot. Hthic. v1. 12, where it is said, in reference to deivdrns, ty fev 6 ckomds 7} KaAés, eraweTH eoTLy, &y 5€ patdos, mavoupyia. 20. Kal mdAuv] ‘And again,’— to cite another confirmatory passage: comp. Matth. iv. 7, Rom. xv. 10, 11, Eebtkie 5; Ui. 13, x. 30, al. The quotation is from Psalm xciy. 11, where however the LXX has av@pd- mwv. The context is still not the less in harmony with the present adaptation ; see Hofm. in loc., who has briefly noticed and explained the original passage. Stadoytopots] ‘ 7easonings,’—not merely ‘ cogitationes,’ Vulgate, the stronger sense being that in which the word is more commonly found, at any rate in the N. T. It is here the translation of the Hebrew Njavin (counsels, purposes) : comp. Wisd. vii. 20, and the numerous exx. in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p- 1223, in some of which (Plato, Awioch. p. 367 a) it is associated with ¢povris ; compare also Suicer, Thesaur. “s. Vv. Vole pe 278. in Phil. ii. 14, 1 Tim. ii. 8, the mean- ing is somewhat different, as it appy. takes its hue from the context; see notes 72 loc. 21. “Qote] ‘Consequently, so then ;’ admonition flowing from the general tenor of the statements of the preceding section; ‘ epilogus quo redit ad primam propositionem, non esse in magistris gloriandum,’ Kst. The reference may be to what immediately precedes (Meyer, sec Phot. in loc.), but seems here to in- volve a wider retrospect ; see Hofm. in loc. On the present use of the particle with the imperative, in which the idea of logical conse- quence becomes merged in that of monition (‘itaque,’ Vulg.), see note on Phil. ii. 12, where this use of the particle is fully discussed. év avOpdmois] ‘among men,’— shown to be thus weak and untrust- worthy ; ‘ nemo] leetetur quod hune aut illum doctorem habuerit,’ Grot.; see ch. iv. 6, where the nature of the boasting is more exactly de- fined. TwdvTa yap tnav éotiv] ‘for all things are yours ;’ confirmation of the foregoing ad- monition, by showing how opposed all such sectarian boasting is to the universality of the Christian’s heri- tage; comp. Rom. vili. 28 sq. As Meyer rightly observes, the apo- thegm of heathen philosophy (‘ om- nia sapientis esse ’) is here presented 64 IPOS KOPINOIOYS TNPOTH. a“ »¥ 22 eotw, etre lav dos cite "Ato\NOS elre Kyas, etre »¥ ‘ ¥” , lal Kéopos elite Cwi) eite Odvatos, Elite eveotata eEiTE , , ec A“ c hed A lal A 23 péddovTa, TavTa vpav, bwels b€ Xpiotov, Xpirrods d€ Ocov. 22. mdvra tuav) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority : Rec. adds éoriv, under its higher and Christian as- pects. The more specific applica- tion (‘non vos doctorum causa estis, sed illi vestri causé,’ Grot.) follows in the next verse. 22. etre Maddog, x.7.A.] The names that they put forward in their sectarian boastings : comp. ch. 1 12k Kéapos] ‘ (the) world,’—not in its ethical sense (ver. 19), but, as the whole broad tenor of this noble passage indicates, the world in its most inclusive sense, and as that which will hereafter be included in the general «Anpovouia; comp. Rom. iv. 13, viii. 17, 1 Cor. vi. 2. On the various meanings of the word, comp. notes on Gal. iv. 3, and on the general sentiment con- veyed by the verse, Herzog, Encycl. Vol. 1. p. 680. cette Cor etre Odvatos] ‘whether life or death ;’ inelusive specification in its widest aspect of the two (polar) conditions of everything in the xéopos. Even death itself has its aspects and purposes in this kow) &péAcca (Phot., comp. Theod.) of all things; comp. Phil. i. 21, Rom. xiv. 8. Any artificial limitations of the words (i) (wh, dnoiv, ray 5ida- oxddwy, Theoph., al.) are clearly out of harmony with the tenor of this inclusive and almost impassioned utterance ; comp. Rom. viii. 38. cite éveota@ta cite pédAdovTa] ‘ whether things present, or things to come,’ ‘sive presentia sive futura,’ Vulg.: similarly inclusive specifica- tion of all things, whether as in being now, or to come into being hereafter. On the meaning of éveor. see notes on Gal. i. 4, and on 2 Thess. ii. 2. The specification is closed with the repeated mdvyra juav, which in its turn suggests the still wider and partially contrasted clauses of the following verse. 23. pets 5 Xprotod] But ye are Christ's ;’ scil. belong to him, as im abvrov katackevacbertes, Chrys., movjata, Phot. ; slightly antithetical specification of the relation of the juets to Christ,— ‘but you, who thus have all things, belong to Christ, and not to men (comp. ver. 21) and their parties,’ — the 5€ pointing, not to a latent péey in the preceding verse (‘all things indeed are thus yours,’ Riick.), but to the general tenor of the exhorta- tion, cre pndels w.7.A.; see Hofm. in loc. who has very carefully ana- lysed the drift of this concluding verse. Xprords Se Ocot] ‘but Christ is God’s,’—das vids vias, e& avToU yeyevynuévos, @s KThwata Kal Theod., as airby atriuy exwy Kara 7d marépa elvat, Chrys.; see ch. viii. 6, xi. 3, and comp. Luke, ix. 20. The deep truth contained in these words is not to be limited to our Lord’s human nature (‘ hee subjec- tio ad Christi humanitatem refertur,’ Calv., comp. De W.), but to be ex- tended generally to His divine nature and Sonship. The Eternal Son ‘is from the Father, as receiving His IVY. 65 Regard us in our true light as men bound to be faithful in our office. Pass no pre- mature judgments. subsistence by generation from Him’ (Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 63, Oxf. 1820; comp. Jackson, Creed, Vol. vil. 222), and so bears to the Father a willing relation of holy subordina- tion in love (see esp. Plitt, Hvang. Glawbensl. Vol. 1. § 20, p. 142 sq.), without any difference or inequality whatever in reference to His eternal and eyer-blessed Godhead; see esp. Pearson, J.c., the well-known section in Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. (Works, Vol. . v. p. 685 sq.), and comp. Waterl. Works, Vol. 111. p. 486 (Oxf. 1823), Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 28. 3, Vol. 1. p- 357 (Transl.), Martensen, Dogm. § 56, p. 109 (Transl.), Herzog, Real- Encycl. xvi. 484 sq., and the full, but not completely satisfactory, discus- sion of Rothe, Dogmatik, Part 1. § 21, p. 117. This is the truth which Origen felt, but could not properly express; see Dorner, Pers. of Christ, Vol. m. p. 117 sq., Chr. Doctr. § 926, 3, Vol. 111. p. 209 sq. (Transl.) The exact pur- pose of this concluding clause has been differently estimated. That there may be some passing reminis- cence in this verse of ch. i. 12 may perhaps be conceded (see Meyer in loc.), but that the present clause has a sub-polemical reference to it seems very doubtful. The Apostle seems rather to be simply borne onward to the mention of the God and Father of all (‘ad quem ut finem omnia reducuntur,’ Est.) by the natural rise of his inspired and ascending thoughts; compare De Wette and Hofm. i loc., and see Ribiger, In- halt. der Br. an d. Kor. p. 56. Ovtas Has oyilécOw avOpwros IV. ws umnpéetas XpioTov Kat oiKkovdjous IV. 1-5. The right point of view under which Christian teachers are to be regarded, and the duty of suspending all premature judg- ments. I. ottws] ‘ Thus;’ with reference to what follows, as omnpéras k.7.A., comp. ch. ii. 15, ix. 26, Eph. iii. 33, al. Meyer, not without some plausibility, refers the particle to what has just preceded (‘ex pre- cedentibus repetit,’ Beng.; comp. Wilke, Rhetorik, § 33. e, p. 134, and notes on Eph. v. 28), but as the last verse of the preceding chapter seems climactic, and as closing the para- graph, and as there is nothing in what precedes that prepares the way for the two definitions (as brnp. kat oikov.) that here follow, the asyndeton and simpler reference is to be preferred; so Vulg., Copt., and appy. Aith., Arm., Theod., al., but in such cases, owing to a similar flexibility of meaning in the par- ticles, the view taken by some of the Vv. can scarcely be pronounced cer- tain. av89patros] a man; Scil. ‘anyone,’ as ch. xi. 28, Gal. vi. 1, al. The use is not Hebraistic (Grot.), but is occasionally found in classical Greek (see exx. in Steph. Thesaur.s. Vv. Vol.1. p. 786, ed. Hase and Dind.), and apparently in those cases where a ‘gravior dicendi for- mula’ than the ordinary ris is re- quired by the context. In the jas that follows, the context (ver. 6) seems to suggest a reference to the Apostle and Apollos; comp. ch. iii. 5s tanpéras] ‘ ministers,’ ‘ministros,’ Vulg. The word is a dmak Aeydu. in St Paul’s Epp., and is here used in its general sense K 66 MPOZ KOPINGIOY2 ITPOQTH. , Pe ie N a > Aa , 2 pvaotnpiov Ocod. Bde hovmov Cyretrar év Tots oiKkove- 3 pots a miaTds Tis EvpEOy. Emot dé Els Eda TOV EoTW 2. @5€} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 6 5¢€. The reading (nreire is strongly supported (Westc. and Hort, marg.), but seems to be an old correction. (‘minister vel adjutor,’ Steph.), its distinction in meaning from didxovos being scarcely perceptible; comp. notes on Eph. iii. 7. Any reference to the primary meaning of the word (‘ subremiges,’ Wordsw.) seems com- pletely out of the question. clkovémouvg «.7.A.] ‘stewards of God's mysteries ;’ scil. of the deep truths of the Gospel dispensation, formerly unrevealed to man, but now made manifest by Christ Jesus ; comp. Matth. xiii. 11, Rom. xi. 25, al. These holy truths (yvwodevTa pvornpia, Orig., ‘dogmataevangelica,’ Grot.) are dispensed by the teachers and preachers of the Gospel as the goods of an earthly lord are dis- pensed by the steward; see Luke xii. 42, and comp. Tit. i. 7, 1 Pet. iv. 10, where, however, the use of the word is appy. rather wider and more general. On the meaning of the word pvaothpiov, see notes ow Eph. v. 32, from which it would seem that reference to the sacraments (Osiand. ; comp. the priest’s commission in the Ordination Service) cannot here be safely maintained; see Maier in loc.,and comp. Origen (Cram. Caten.), where the meaning of the expres- sion oikoy. wor.) is very fully illus- trated. 2. Se Aou.mrdyv) ‘Here further- more,’—in this position of trnpecia and the particle not referring so much to physical (‘ here on earth,’ Alf.; comp. Heb. xiii. 14) as ethical locality (‘in hac rerum conditione,’ Schleusner; ‘cum eo oikovoula ; statu res nostre sint,’ Ellendt) ; comp. Rom. xiii. so, 18, xiv. 12, xvii. 9. The adverbial adjective Aormy is used as in ch. i. 16 (see notes) to mark what remained to be added to the statement of the preceding clause, and has thus somewhat of a mixed inferential and consequential force (‘ proinde igitur’), especially at the beginning of sentences; see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 8. tnreitar. é€v Toig olxov.] ‘it is sought for, or required, in stewards ;’ it is looked for in their case; oixové- pov yap Td BiouKely Ta eyxetpicbevTa kada@s, Chrys. The exx. in Wetst. are hardly pertinent, as in them (nreita: appears rather to have its semi-philosophical meaning of ‘in questione est; ’see exx. in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. tv. p. 34 (ed. Hase and Dind.). miotdés tig cvpeOq] ‘that a man should be found faithful,’ ‘ ut fidelis quis inveniatur,’ Vulg.; general object of the ¢frnots, the tva having here, as the context seems to require, not its primary telic force (‘ in order that,’ Mey., Alf.), but that secondary force in which design and result are somewhat blended; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8 sq., Wilke, Rhetorik, § 79. a, p. 253, notes ow Phil. i. 9, 1 Thess. vy. 4, and (for the three uses of iva in the N. T.) notes on Eph. i. 17. The indefinite pronoun is here used in its not uncommon sense of ‘a man,’ se. ‘ any man seeking such an office ’ (‘ einer,’ De W. ; ‘ jedwelcher,’ Mey.); see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 16. tva IV. B53e 4h 67 9 e x A > a kA e ‘\ > id ¢ , iva vp bpov avakpia } b7d avOpwriyns Huépas: 2\\> 291 9 eas Bape , IN Sus a , GN’ od EuavTov avakpivw’ ovdev yap ewavT@ avv- 4 7, Matth. Gr. § 487. 2. On the derivation of this word and its con- nexion with Sanser. Ai, Zend. cis, see Donaldson, Orat. § 149, Fick, Vergleich. Worterb. Part 1. p. 42. 3. euot S& «.7.A.] ‘But to me it is a very small matter ;’ contrasted reference to his own case, the thought immediately flowing from the preceding (‘so you will have to enquire about me’) being left unex- pressed; compare De Wette i loc. In the formula eis é€Adxioroy (‘pro minimo est,’ Vulg.), the preposition is not used Hebraistically (Grot.), but simply marks the result (‘it amounts to’), or the condition ul- timately arrived at; see Winer, § 29. 2, and comp. Acts xix. 27, eis ovdey AoyioOjvat. tva io’ tydv avaxprdd] ‘ that I should be judged of by you,’—the ta here again having its weakened telic force (see above, ver. 2), and being no stronger in meaning than our simple ‘that;’ comp. Matth. x. 25, xviii. 6. The meaning in fact seems to lie between the simple infin, (comp. Osiand.) and the infin. with the article (inf. ‘ of design’), which last form of expression is scarcely practically distinguishable from iva (in its primary telic meaning) with the subjunctive; comp. notes on Phil. iii. to. avOpamlvns Awepas] ‘ day of man’s judgment,’ — in antithesis to the day of the Lord’s judgment alluded to in ver. 5; «i avaxplyecOat meAAw, ev TH TOD Kupiov neépa avaxpOjcoua, Origen (Cram. Cat.). It is really hardly necessary to add that this is neither a so- called ‘Cilicism’ (Jerome), nor a Hebraism (Schoettg.), but is simply a formula which derives its mean- ing very obviously from the context, and may possibly have been (see De W.) a current expression in the time of St Paul. The interpretation of Theodoret (avOpwrtvny 5& tucpay exdreoe Td THs picews GAvydBiov) is mistaken, and that of Theoph. (é7’ &AAov twos avOpérov), insufficient. GAN 0dbE EwavTdv dvaxp.] ‘ Nay, I judge not even mine own self ;’ the a@AA&® marking the strong contrast (‘aliud jam hoe esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 2) between the passively expressed statement in the foregoing clause and the actively expressed statement in the present clause, and the ovd¢é emphasizing the pronoun,—‘ not even in a case where avd«piois might certainly seem to be natural and permissible ;’ comp. Theod., ri ydp, ono, yw TOYS %AAOUS; eyw TH Kar’ EuauToy aKpiBOs éemioTdmevos .. . ovTE Kpivat euavT@, ovTe GOgoy éeuauTdy amopivar avetouat. 4. ovS€v yap én. otvorSa] ‘ for I am conscious of nothing against myself ;’ ‘nullius rei mihi conscius sum,’ Syr.; parenthetical confirma- tion or rather elucidation (yap being here mainly in its explanatory sense ; see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and Winer, Gr. § 53. 8) of the foregoing declaration that he did not judge even himself (in his ministerial and official relations) ; ‘non in mentem mihi venit me in ministerio mihi credito secus quicquam fecisse,’ Grot. The phrase ¢uavtg otyvoida (comp. ‘conscire mihi,’ Hor. Epist. I. I. 61) is not wholly uncommon in earlier Greek (see Plato, Apol. p. 21 B), and, in later Greek, is even of frequent occurrence : see the numer- ous exx. cited by Wetst. in loc. E2 68 TIPOS KOPINOEIOYS MPOTH. oda, GAN’ odk ev TOUTH Sedikalwpat’ 6 dé avakpivev 9 ‘\ lal - , 9 5 pe Kipios éorw. “Note py 7po Karpov Tt kpivete, ews a ¥ c , a ‘ , ‘ ‘ “~ div €hOn 6 Kvpwos, os Kat hoticoe Ta KpuTTa TOU GAN’ otk ev TOUT SeSiK.] ‘ how- beit, not in this, or hereby, am I jus- tified ;’ contrasted, and, so, rectify- ing statement in reference to the words immediately preceding, ‘non inde sequitur me plane ab omni culpa esse liberum,’ Grot. The negative is studiously separated from the verb with which it is, ‘ quoad sensum,’ connected, so as to gain, by prominence in the sentence, the emphasis (‘sed non in hoe,’ Vulg.) which the preceding words naturally tend to call out. Meyer, resting on this order, presses the technical meaning of ‘justified,’ scil. by faith: such a meaning, how- ever, appears completely alien to the context, in which moral cireum- stances and general accountableness seem alone before the mind of the inspired writer; comp. Hofm. and Osiand. in loc. So rightly Estius (‘ conscientia me non accusans non certo me justwm arguit’), Calv., De W., and the majority of modern expositors. 6 8 advaxptvev pe] ‘but he that judges me;’ antithetical statement of who it is that does really judge him; the 5€ referring to the foregoing ovde euavr. avaxp., and the ovdéy— dedix. being parenthetical. The reference throughout the passage, and esp. in the clause oddéy euavrg «.7.A., is not to an avdxpiois in regard of purely spiritual and sub- jective matters, but, as the whole tenor of the context suggests, to the Apostle’s official and ministerial position; ‘notemus Paulum hic non de tota sua vita, sed tantum de Apo- stolatus functione loqui,’ Calv. Kutpués éoriv] ‘is the Lord;’ scil. Christ, as shown by the immediate context: see ver. 5, €ws &v EAOn 6 Kipios. 5. "“Qore ph «.7.d.] ‘So then pass no judgment’ (uh xplvere xpl- ow tid, comp. John vii. 24) either on me or on others: consequence (‘itaque,’ Vulgate, — not ‘ proinde,’ Calvin, Beza, which less precisely marks the blended consequence and retrospect included in the particle) immediately flowing from the pre- ceding clause; ‘as it is Christ that judgeth me (‘dijudicat’), wait till He comes, and do not pass any judgment (‘fillet ein Urtheil,’ De Wette ; comp. Syr. ‘sitis judices ’) on me before the time.’ The ex- hortation is thus not merely general (see Est. a loc.), but special in its reference to the Apostle, and to the particular circumstances to which he is here alluding. On the force of ore with imperatival clauses, see notes on ch. iii. 21, and comp. Wilke, Rhet. § 81, p. 265. apd Katpod] ‘ before the time,’ scil. the right and proper time, mpocf- kovtos Kapod, Chrys. ; comp. Matth. viii. 29. The exact meaning is added epexegetically in the words that follow. was av EXOy S Kipios] ‘ until the Lord shall have come ;’ explanation of the 7p) kaipod. The &v marks the coming, not in any way as contingent or doubtful, but as undefined as to the exact period of its happening (‘ when the Lord shall come,—whenever that may be’); comp. Matth. xvi. 28, Mark ix. 2, Luke ix. 27, al., and see Herm. de Part. ty, p. 65 sq., Hartung, Partik. Vol. m. p. 291, Winer, Gr. § 42. 5. TVs +53 46. 69 , ‘ , x \ A An 2 okétouvs Kal davepdce Tas Bovis THY Kapdidv ‘ 4 e » , ec , bd \ lal lal KQL TOTE O ETALVOS YEVITETAL EKAOTWM ATO TOV Ocov. The form in which I have spoken is to correct party spirit and pride. consider the lot of us the Apostles, 38s Kal dottoer K.t-A.] ‘ who shall also bring to light (‘lucem inferet in,’ Bengel) the hidden things of darkness :’ not only shall He come to judge, but in that coming and judging He shall alsomake manifest all that is secret and hidden; d:a- Tewet Td vepos, Chrys. The gen. Tov okéTous is appy. a so-called gen. of possession,—the hidden things that are surrounded by and enve- loped in darkness, ‘ tenebris impli- cita,’ Calv., ‘in tenebris gesta aut reposita,’ Est.; comp. (with a per- sonal genitive) Rom. ii. 16, Eeclus. i. 30, al. For exx. of gwrtifew with an accus. ret (eis pas &yew, Suid., eis uwecov &yew, Chrys.), see 2 Tim. i. 10, Ecclus. xxiv. 32, and the good collection in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. var. p. 1208 (ed. Hase and Dindorf). Kal davepdcet K.t.A.] ‘and shall make manifest the counsels of the hearts ;’ closer specification of the foregoing general expression; ‘sane cor hominis erypta est,’ Beng.; comp. Rom. ii. 16. The true character and motives, not only of the Apostle but of the other teachers, will then be made manifest, and the due praise (6 éravos) will be awarded to each from God (emphatic ; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 606. 3),—through Christ as the judge; comp. John v. 27, Acts x. 42, Rom. ii. 16, al. The Corin- thians, then, were to wait, and not to pass judgments which belonged only to 6 Tas kapdias épevyay, Chrys. : comp. Calv. and Hofm. in loc. 6 €matvos] ‘the due or fitting praise ;’ comp. Rom. ii. 29, xiil. 3, Tavta 8€, ddehdot, pererynud- 6 The best corrective is to 1 Pet. i. 7, ii. 14, al., in all which passages the usual and primary meaning of the word (not ‘ merces,’ Aith., but ‘laus,’ Vulg., Syr., Arm.) is distinctly to be maintained; praise and approbation at the hands of men was that which was (comp. ch. iii. 21) sought after in Corinth; what was humbly to be waited for was the ed doiA€ ayabé kal wisté (Matth. xxv. 21) from God. There is no necessity for regarding the term éra:vos as here correlatively including its contrary (‘nominata laude relinquitur intelligendum vi- tuperium,’ Est.; comp. Beng., Olsh., al.), as the whole context turns only upon the former idea; to each of God’s ministers, by His grace, there will be, not simply éravos, but 6 émavos, praise in such proportion and amount as is due tohim; comp. 6 wc6ds, Rom. iv. 4. 6-13. The purpose of the refer- ence to himself and Apollos, and to the Apostles generally. 8€] ‘ Now these things,’ ‘ these com- ments’; viz. from ch. iii. 5, where the reference to himself and Apollos more distinctly begins, the 8% (uera- Barixév, Hartung, Partik. Vol. t. p. 165) marking the transition to this and the concluding paragraphs of the present (the first) portion of the Epistle. To extend the reference of the raira to the whole of this first portion or to all that has pre- ceded from ch. i. 12 (Theoph., Beng., al.) is not satisfactory; the natural reference is to the two para- graphs, the first terminating with TAaVTaA 70 IPOS KOPINGIOY> TIPOTH. > > ‘ x, >? ‘ 7 2 Bs 9 5 ea Tira els euavTov Kal Amohhov Sv byas, wa ev Type , ‘ , eee a , 7 ‘ t € \ palynre To My vTep a yéypantat, Wa pH els vréep 6. "AwoAAdy] So Tisch., Treg., Weste. and Hort, on preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm. AwoAd@. and Rev., on clearly preponderating authority. &) So all the above-mentioned edd. yéypamrat, va] So all the critical edd. on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds ppovety after yéyparrat. dore pndels «.7.A. (ch. iii. 21), and the second with éore wh mpd Kaipod (ver. 5), in which the relation of the Church to its teachers is more particularly specified ; see Hofmann in loc. PeTECXNATLOG «.7.A.] ‘I have transferred to’ (‘ap- plied to the person of,’ Syr.) ‘ myself and Apollos ;’ the aorist (not ‘ episto- lary,’ Alf.) pointing to the mention already made of himself and Apollos, in which the transference was made, and the eis marking the reference and (logical) direction of the action; compare Winer, Gr. § 49.a. The verb occurs five times in the N.T., here, 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14, 15, and Phil. iii. 21, and in all involves the idea of a change or transference of oxiua, the nature of the cxjjua being defined by the context; see exx. in Steph. Thesaur.s. v. Vol. v. p. 899 (ed. Hase). The oxjjua here is the general form in which the Apostle has expressed himself; this he changes by giving it a concrete re- ference to himself and Apollos. The view of Chrys., Phot., al., that the peracxynuatiouds was the refer- ence to himself and Apollos of what really referred to, and was meant to refer to, the party-leaders (ei é@ éxelywy tov Adyov mpotyyayey ovK by edctayro thy SidpOwoww, Chrys.; see Phot. ap. Cramer, Caten.), is incon- sistent with the appy. limited refer- ence of tadra (see above), and out of harmony with the general tenor of the context. On the form of the accus. "AmoAAdy, or (as Lachm. with some amount of good critical authority) ’AwoAAé, see Winer, Gr. § 8. 2, Kiihner, Gr. 124. év tpas] ‘for your sakes,’—not our Own ; 0vx iva mepl MavaAou kal ’AmoAAw TatTa ywéokouey povoy, Orig. How it was so, is explained in the clause that follows. tva év qpiv «.-d.] ‘that in us (and by us) ye may learn;’ purpose of the merecxny- aticuds, and further explanation of the preceding 6? suds. The prep. év here, as not uncommonly, serves to mark the substratum of the action; see notes on Gal. 1. 24, and Winer, Gr. § 48. a. Tt) My timip & yéypatrrat) ‘ the (lesson), Go not beyond the things that are written :’ substantival object of the pdénre ; the rd giving the character of a neuter substantive to the words that follow it (Kiihner, Gr. § 461. 7), and the emphatic uy carry- ing with it a latent and easily sup- plied verb; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 667, Winer, Gr. § 64. 4, Buttm. Gramm. N. T. p. 338, but observe that it seems more in accordance with this use of mu) to consider the present rather a case of what is called ‘aposiopesis’ than of ellipse,—i.e. that an imper. (comp. ‘ne quid nimis’ ) rather than an infin. (Winer) is to be supplied ; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 598. The yéyparra has received several different references,—to the li (ye Th aA aN A \ Pen oe , , Tov evds dvowvobe Kata Tov ETE€pov. Tis ydp oe 7 commands of our Lord in the N. T. (Chrys., al.) ; to the foregoing direc- tions in this Epistle (Neand., al.) ; to a generally prescribed principle (Hofm., comp. Pind. Nem. vr. 7); to the precepts of the (Old Test.) Scripture generally, some of which (e.g. Jer. ix. 23) have been already cited (ch. i. 31). Of these the last is, almost obviously, the most proba- ble ; the impersonal yéyparra being nearly always thus used with refer- ence to Scripture (see Grot. in loc.), and Scripture having already been thus referred to three or four times in this Epistle; see above ch. i. 19, Shy i. ay iil. FO. tva pry x.7.A.] ‘that ye be not puffed wp, one in favour of the one against the other,’ scil. ‘one in favour of the one teacher whom he may choose, as against the other teacher whom he may reject;’ second and derivative purpose resulting from the first,— the avoidance of sectarian dissen- sions; ‘ «is imép rod évds, definitio sect, ubi singuli singulos mirantur et sequuntur,’ Beng. The rod evs seems naturally to specify the «is as the head of a party (Reiche; ‘ dis- cipulus pro magistro qualicunque,’ Est., compare Theod.), just as Tov érépov seems to mark the head of the party to which the eis in ques- tion (see ch. i. 12) is opposed ; the two teachers mentioned in the verse being thus indicated without being again more particularly specified. Some interpreters (Meyer, al.) press- ing the close connexion of the «is imwép Tod évés, and its separation by the verb from the kata tod Erépov, regard it as in fact equivalent to bmtp adAjAwy (see I Thess. vy. II, and notes in loc. and comp. Ecclus. xlii. 24, 1 Mace. xiii. 28), the rod érepov thus referring to a third party, against whom the pucwicba of the cis bmrép rod Evds (‘ one on be- half of one, and another of another’) wes directed. This is certainly grammatically admissible, and cer- tainly serves to accentuate the in- dividualisms of faction; but it is deficient in simplicity and direct- ness, and obscures the significance of the tod évds and Tod eErépov, and the clearness of their antithesis. It is remarkable that Winer (Gr. § 47.1) should have here taken szrép in its semi-local meaning ‘ above,’ such a meaning (with the gen.) not being found in the N. T., and in this pas- sage marring the obvious antithesis between treép and card; comp. Mark ix. 40, Rom. viii. 31. The only remaining difficulty is the mood of the verb @uciodc0e. This may be either an incorrectly contracted subj. (Beng.; see Reiche, p. 152), or a solecistically used indicative. The former ig perhaps slightly more probable; comp. Gai. iv. 17, and see notes im loc. Meyer urges strongly that ta is here local (‘ wobei,’ ‘in which case’), but the plain sequence of thought and, it may be added, all the ancient Vv. and expositors are in favour of the easier and (esp. with a preceding ta) more usual telic force; comp. Rom. vii. 13, Gal. iii. 14, Eph. vi. 19, 20, and notes on Gal. iv. 55 where the conjugate iva is similarly used, 7. tls yap oe Staxplver] ‘ Hor who is it that distingwisheth thee (only one of the duets above alluded to; o& roy BovAduevoy amd Todde TOvdE Severian), t.e. draws any distinction between thee and anyone else?’ con- KaAdetoOat 7) KaTaAum@avely, 72 IPOS KOPINGIOY2 TIPOTH. Siaxpiver; Ti dé exes 6 OvK EhafBes; ei SE Kat 8 édaBes, ti Kavyaoat as py aBdv ; 76n KeKopeo- pévor €oté, HON emOUTYTATE, Ywpis Hav €Bact- firmation of the justice and reason- ableness of the iva wu) «.7.A. First, the didxpiois was a self-made one; and, secondly, any quality or natural gift which, for the moment, might seem to justify it, was vouchsafed and received from above; ovdev otxobey Exes GAAG mapa Tov cod AaBoév, Chrys. There is some little doubt as to the meaning of d:axp‘ver. It may have, through the context, the derivative sense ‘eximie dis- tinguit’ (Beng.; éynplicaro akioy Tod émawveicOa, Theoph.), but is more naturally taken in its simple and indeterminate meaning, ‘ discernit,’ Vulg., Syr. (‘ examinat,’ Ath., Arm.) ; compare Herod. 111. 39, #ye mdvTas, diakplvwy ovdéva. TC 8& Exes] ‘and what hast thou?’ second con- firmatory reason for the tva wij «.7.A, the 6¢in accordance with its primitive meaning (Donalds. Crat. § 155) add- ing a second zmphatic question (see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2, who notices the sort of medial position 5¢ sometimes holds between «al and @AAd) with just that tinge of opposition which a new question brings with it: see Winer,Gr. § 53. 10. 2,comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p- 361. el 8 kal €AXafPeg «-7.A.] ‘ butif thou didst receive it, why boast- est thou as tf thou recewedst vt not 2’ antithetic concession, ei cal marking ‘rem ita esse, ut dicitur’ (Herm. Viger, No. 307), and kal coalescing with and adding emphasis to the €AaBes; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 3, and, on the distinction between ei cal and xa) «i, notes on Phil. ii. 17 ; see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 519, Kiihner, Gr. § 578. 2. 8 6 Kexopecpevor éoté] ‘ Al- ready are ye filled full:’ ‘ironia longa et gravis’ (Grot.), perhaps suggested by the €AaBes and AaBdéy,—‘if thou receivedst, did I say; O yes! ye are filled full, and that too even now be- fore the BaciAcla is come;’ oftw TAaXEwS Mpds T TEAOS EpOacare, Chrys. To make this and the following clauses interrogative (Westcott and Hort) mars the irony of the assumed concession and the natural transi- tion in such a passage from sharp question to the half answer of derisive assertion. It is somewhat doubtful as to what this and the climactic words émAouticatre and é- BaoiAedoare (‘gradatio: saturi, div- ites, reges,’ Beng.) are specially to be referred. They may refer to self- supposed spiritual progress (rTdv TwAovTOY mavTa THs TE yudoews Kal TOY xapicudrwy, Theoph.), but, as the concluding portion of the verse seems to suggest, more naturally to point to the Messianic kingdom, which these Corinthians regarded as now verily their own: comp. Origen an loc. (Cram. Cat.). dn étrAouTHaarte] ‘already are ye rich,’ ‘ divites facti estis,’ Vulg.; the tense (comp. €BaciAevoare below) marking the entrance into the state (see esp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 5. 1), and being, as usual, simply silent as to the permanence of it; contrast Hos. xii. X, memAotrnka, efpnea avayuxny é€uavtg, where the continuance is specified : see Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 5, Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17, Donalds. Gr. § 427. aa. The assertion that mAourey and fBactdevery are here simply inchoative (Maier) is very clearly incorrect: compare Wilke, TV 383. 6: (@3. Mevoate’ Kal odedov ye eBacievoate, Wa Kal iC lal ean , Heels VW ocuvBacievoewper. SoK® ydp, 6 Oeds 9 9. Sox@ ydp] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority : Rec. adds 67, Rhet. p. 42. Xopls hav éBao.] ‘ ye have become kings without us, —without us (emphatic), scil. Apollos and me, without whom ye neyer would haye become Christians at all; 7d opddpa avdnrov Selkvutat, Chrys. On the union of the aorist with a particle involving present time, see notes on Col. i. 21. SherAdv ye EBactretoare] ‘ Aye, would that ye did reign ;’ ‘in spite of this reigning without us, I wish that verily ye did reign,’ the yé sharpening and giving emphasis to the dpedov: see Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 372 sq., Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 281, and, on the two seemingly opposed meanings of yé (‘aut ut minimum, aut ut maximum com- memoretur ;’ but see also Kviiger, Sprachl. § 69. 15), the comments and exx. in Herm. Viger, No. 296. b, where this particle is very carefully illustrated. The primary sense is that of enhancement of an intensive character (just as wép usually marks enhancement of an extensive char- acter), and so, generally, emphasis and accentuation; the secondary and more derivative sense is that of segregation from all else (Baiumlein, Partik. s.v. p. 54 sq.; where, how- ever, this seems regarded as the primary conception), and so restric- tion and specification; see Kiihner, Gr. § 511, and comp. Donalds. Crat. § 203. On the use of épedov, which in the N.T. is purely that of a particle, see notes on Gal. v. 12. tva Kal pets x.7.A.] ‘that we also might reign with you: ’? subjunctive, Kal —as the purpose is regarded as de- pendent on a state which, as far as the wish went, had been already entered into, and is now regarded as present ; see Winer, Gr. § 41. 1. b, and the good notes of Stallbaum on Plato, Crit. 43 B, compared with note on Apol. 17 a. In such eases, as Stallb. rightly says, ‘mentis cogi- tatio a preterito tempore ad presens deducitur :’ see also Herm.de Emend. Gram. p. 212, and the good collection of exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 553. 3 b. If the imperf. or aorist indic. had been used (as usually in cases of what is impossible or unattainable, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 54. 8. 8, Kiihner, Gr. 553. 7; compare Plato, Crit. § 44 pb), the purpose would then have been connected with the past (‘that we might then be reigning’ or, if aor., ‘that we might have reigned’) and the thought would have become retrospective: comp. Donalds. Gr. § 614, and the clear remarks and distinctions of Schmal- feld, Gr. Verb. § 143, p. 295. 9. S0Kd yap] ‘ For I swppose, me- thinks ;’ confirmation of the pre- ceding wish and its purpose; ‘I may well wish that we were reigning with you, for our real state is strikingly the reverse.’ The verb doK@ (ov Siotayuov addr’ 7Oous eupari- kév, Phot.) serves to mark ‘sensu quodam demisso’ (comp. Beng.), and not without some tinge of irony (Grot.), the inference which the facts of the case appeared to sug- gest; os dpa, pnol, Kal e& dy tpeis gare, Chrys.; comp. ch. vii. 40. For 74 (IPOS KOPINGIOYS TPOTH. ¢ A ‘ > / b) , > / c Has Tos amoaTd\ovs eoydTous arméde~ev, ws émufavatious, oT. Oéarpov eyeryOnuev TO KoopM 10 Kal ayyédows Kat avOpaross. exx. of this absolute use of 50x, see Kiihner, Gr. § 548. 1. Aas Tovs atroot.] ‘us the Apostles’ —-who might justly claim such a very different position. The refer- ence is here general (himself and the other Apostles), but passes, not unnaturally, ver. 11 sq., into a ref. to himself, and to the verifying cir- cumstances of his own case. éaxadtovs aréSergev] ‘set forth as last ;’ ‘extremos et secundum secu- lum vilissimos,’ Est. The éoxdrouvs, it need hardly be said, is a predicate dependent on the amedetey, and specifying what the Apostles were shown to be,—‘ collocati infimo loco,’ Grot.; compare Aristot. Pol. m1. 4, éoxaros djuos, and Mark ix. 35. To connect it with damroordaAous as refer- ring to date of calling (see Calv., al.), or with ér@avar’ous (‘ last appointed to death,’ Stanl.), is not grammati- cally defensible. &s ém- @avartiovs] ‘as sentenced to death,’ —men whose circumstances make them seem to be such; katad’kous, mpds Td Oavarovala maperkevarmevous, Theoph. The interpretation of Ter- tullian, de Pudic. cap. 14, ‘ veluti bestiarios,’ certainly derives some support from what follows, but is, -perhaps, ‘argutius quam verius dic- tum.’ The form is a Gat Aeydp. in the N. T., and only occasionally found in later writers; see exx. in Steph. Thesaur.s. v. Vol. mt. p. 1597 (ed. Hase). bt. Oedtpov éyev7.) for, or seeing that, we are become a spectacle; explanation of the amédeitev as emiBavarious, the drt having here, as often in theN. T., more of an explanatory (Donalds. Heels pwpot dua Gr. § 549) than of a purely causal meaning; see Schmalfeld, Synt. § 165, 169 b, where this sort of transitional form of the exposi- tive sentence is briefly but clearly noticed; comp. also exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 569. 2. As a general rule, yap confirms, 87: gives the reason; but in translation the more distinctly causal rendering (‘because’) will often be found inadmissible ; comp. Bain, Engl. Gr. p. 69. To take the particle as a relative (6 71, and as connected with @¢arpov, Hofm.), is harsh and unnatural. The verbal subst @é€arpoy is here, as Mey. rightly observes, nearly equivalent to @éa or O¢aua (Hesych.; cis Qewp’av, Theo- doret), as in Aisch. Dial. Socr. m1. 20, al.; so rightly Theoph., de@vrat Huds ove tvOpwrot pdvot, GAAG Kal wyyedAor; comp. Heb. x. 33. On the meaning of éyevf#Onuevy, which is probably only passive in form, see notes on Eph. iii. 7. Kal ayyédous Kal GvOpdétrots] ‘ both to angels and to men;’ specification of the preceding kécu, the two an- arthrous substantives (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 3. obs.) defining the gene- ral term; ‘exponit Apostolus divi- dendo, quod dixerat mundo,’ Est. The &yyeAo here specified are prob- ably good angels (vi &yyeAot Tov @cov, Orig.; al yw tay ayyéAwv tates, Phot.), not, of both kinds (Aquin., Beng.),—the remark of Meyer appearing to be just, that when &yyeAo: is used in reference to evil angels, there is always some- thing in the context that indicates the limitation: comp. Matth. xxv. 41, 2 Cor. xii. 7, 2 Pet. ii. 4, Jude 6, TVS 6p UE 75 Xpiordv, wets S5é€ pdviypor ev XpisT@e+ Hpets > “A c ~ MED / ¢ Lal »” Cs an . daevets, vets Sé ioyupot> tpets evdoFor, ypets dé GTyLol. aYpl THS ApTL wWpas Kal TEeWwapev Kal Su- II and see Meyer in loc. and on Rom. viii. 38. On the uses of the word in the N. T., see the good article in Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 18 sq. (comp. Rothe, Dogmatik, Part 1. § 54, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, Vol. 1. Pp: 274 sq.); and, on the question of the reality of the existence of these blessed beings (the association with av@p. is itself an evidence of the distinctness of the Apostle’s belief), see Philippi, Kirchl. Glawbenslehre, Part m1. p. 287 sq., Van Oosterzee, Chr. Dogmatics, § 57, p. 310 sq., the comprehensive article of Bohmer, in Herzog, Real-Encycl. Vol. 1v. p. 18 sq., and especially Bp. Bull, Serm. xI. p. 194 sq. (Eng. Works), and Dorner, Chr. Doctr. §§ 44, 45, Vol. Ir. p. 96 sqq. (Transl.). 10. pets] ‘ We,’—not without some degree of ironical emphasis mpoayes toy Adyov Kat eipwyeluy, Chrys.) ; we the lowly and foolish, in contrast with yow the wise and illu- minated: ‘hee antithesis tota est ironica et plena aculeis,’ Calv. in loc. 8a Xprordyv] ‘on account of Christ,’ ‘propter Chris- tum,’ Vulg. It was owing to preach- ing Christ, even as Christ Himself sent the Apostle forth to preach,— ovk ev copia Adyou (ch.i. 17), that St Paul and his fellow-preachers studiedly were, so far as this world’s wisdom was concerned, pwpol,— ‘um Christi Willen beschriinken wir uns nur auf Christus,’ Mey.; see ch. iis 2. év Xpiore@] ‘in Christ,’ and in your connexion with Him; ‘Christum et prudentiam carnis simul miscere volebant,’ Calv. In both clauses the auxiliary verb (eouev, eoré) is all that has to be supplied ; the context clearly points to what each party was, not merely what they appeared to be. aaGevets—ioxvpot] ‘weak—strong;’ weak,—not merely in ref. to suffer- ings and trials (Theoph.), nor, even exclusively, in ref. to special ex- traneous aids, such as eloquence and wisdom (De W.), but simply and generally: they were weak in regard of all human powers and agencies, and relied simply on Christ and His word; see ch. ii. 3, and comp. 2 Cor. X. IO, xiii. 3 sq. The Corinthians on the contrary were strong (mpodyet Tov Adyoy Kat’ eipwyelay, Chrys.)—-in pretension, self-assumption, and the estimation of their followers. The last idea is more distinctly brought out in the veg (‘ high in honour,’ ‘vulthagdi,’ Goth.,—almost ‘ glori- fied,’ comp. Syr.) that follows, the antithesis being between the glory that the one received, and the dis- honour that was the lot of the other ; Ammon. de Diff. Voc. s. v.; comp. 1 Sam. ix. 6, xxii. 14, Isaiah xxiii. 8, Ecclus. xi. 6, al. II. d&yxpi tig Gptt dpas] ‘Up to this present how;’ not merely ‘generaliter dictum ’ (Alf.), but defi- nitely specifying the state in which St Paul himself or others actually may have been at the time of writ- ing; comp. €ws apr, ver. 13. In the preceding clause the order of the pronouns is changed that the transition to the specification of the circumstances of the juets might anf) évdotds eoti 6 érionuos, follow more easily. These he speci- fies under the three heads of bodily 76 IIPOZ KOPINOIOYS IIPOTH. lal \ WOnev Kal yuuritevoney Kal KohadilopneOa Kat 12 dotaTotmev Kal KoTmidpev epyalopevor Tals idtaus xXepaiv: howWopovmevor edoyovper, Suwkdpevou av- II. yuumtevouev] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority : Rec. yuuvnrevouer. sufferings (%xpi—xepoly), ill treat- ment and their conduct towards those who ill-treated them (Ao:d0p.— mapakahoduev), and, lastly, general contempt and disesteem (as mepixad. €ws pti): comp. Hofm. in loc.; sim. Aquinas. On the distinction between ap: and péxpi, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9. YUViTEt- opev] ‘are without necdful clothing,’ ‘have not enough to cover ourselves with ;’ comp. 2 Cor. xi. 27, év Woxe kal yuuvdrntt. The use of the word in the current Greek of the time (so in Dio Cass. and Plutarch) appears to have been confined to yuuvérns in respect of armour; ‘ velitem agere,’ Grot. The subst. ynuvnrla (‘levis armatura,’ Liv.; abstr. for coner.) is found in Thueyd. Hist. vu. 37. Kodadiléyce8a] ‘are buffeted,’ ‘struck with fists;’ see Matth. Xxvi. 67, Mark xiv. 65, 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; 1 Pet. ii. 20: ‘colaphis cedimur,— velut servi: adeo non regnamus,’ Beng. This, however, may be a little too refined ; ‘ contumeliosa tractatio, maxime que sit inflictis verberibus,’ (Est.), or rough treatment generally, is probably all that is here implied by the word. aotaTovpery] ‘have no abiding place, ‘domum perstantem non habemus,’ Syr., ‘ in- certis sedibus erramus,’ Vulg., ‘in- quieti facti sumus,’ Armen.; éAavyd- peOa yap, Chrys. The word (a amak Aeydu. in New Test.) marks infer- entially the persecuted (aoraTotdmer * TovTéiott diwkdueba, Phavor.), and so unresting (aoratotons xemavi THs Oaddoons, Appian) nature of the life of St Paul and the Apostles. I2. Kal Komidpev K.T.A] Sand toil working with our own hands ;’ the participial clause defining the manner and the accompaniments of the xémos; comp. Col. i. 28, ii. 5, 13, al., and on the use generally of the appended participle, the brief but clear comments of Scheuerlein, Syntax, § 46. 2, p. 485. Here the Apostle primarily specifies his own case (Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34, I Thess. ii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 8), but, very prob- ably, includes in it that of others. On the meaning of xomd», which always seems to involve some asso- ciated idea of toilsomeness or suffer- ing, comp. notes on I Tim. iv. 9, and on 1 Thess. li. 9. AorSopovpevor evAoyotperv] ‘ being reviled we bless;’ second aspect (see above) of the position and cir- cumstances of St Paul and his brother-apostles ; deixvuct thy éoxd- thy evtéAciay, Theodoret. Not only were they without honour, perse- cuted, and toilworn, and endurers of all in patience, but they even re- quited it with blessing and gentle words ; ‘id mundus spretum putat,’ Beng. Our Lord’s command (Matth. y. 44, Luke vi. 27) may not here be definitely referred to (Mey.), but it may well have been in the Apostle’s thoughts, and its tenor was certainly acted on. On the subject generally, see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1055, Vol. tv. p. 333 (ed. 2), and comp. § 936, Vol. rv. p. 71 sq. EV Sa aes 77 exopneba, Svodynpovpevor Tapakadrodper* ws Tepi- 13 kafdppata Tov Kdopov éyeryOnpev, TdvTwr Tepi- una, Ews apTe. 13. Svopnuoduevor] So Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on slightly pre- ponderating authority; Rec., Lachm., Treg., BAacpnwoduevor. The evidence is nearly evenly balanced. The internal argument, however, that the less usual form (5vc¢,) was more likely to have been changed into the more usual (BAac¢.), than BAacp. changed as too strong a word for the context (for see ch. x. 30, Rom. iii. 8, Tit. iii, 2, al.), seems perfectly valid, and strengthens the decision. 13. Svodnpovpevor Aodpev] ‘ being defamed we intreat ;’ Hriws Tots SiaBdAAvvor Siadeyducba, TwapaKka- Theod., mpaorépois Adyots Kad wadrak- Theoph. The meaning of mapakadeiv is here ob- viously not ‘hortari’ (Stanley),— which would be inappropriate, nor ‘precari (pro ipsis),’ Syr., comp. Grot.,—which, though not without example (Joseph. Antiq. vi. 2. 2), is contrary to St Paul’s usage,—but ‘obsecrare’ (Vulg., or, more fully, ‘humiliter loqui obsecrantium more,’ Kst., ‘gute Worte geben,’ Grimm. On the varied meanings of this fre- quently used word (St Paul uses it more than 50 times) see notes on ch. i. 10, and on Eph. iv. 1. As Grimm (Lex. s. v.) rightly observes, the lead- ing and general meaning is ‘alloquio adire aliquem,’ but as this ‘al- loquium ’ may be hortatory, consola- tory, precatory, or otherwise, the context alone can settle the exact shade of meaning passage ; Tikots dGmctBdoueba, in any given see notes on I Thess. v. Mike $s teptkabdppara K.T.A.] ‘we are become as the filth, or refuse, of the world;’ ‘ purga- menta mundi,’ Vulg., Syr., al. The word zrepixabdpu. has two meanings, both of late lexical authority,—the simple form in each ease being the more usual,—viz. (a) (kaOdpuara) ‘quisquilie,’ ra ey tais oik’as ws mepitTe amopimrdéueva, Theod.; so in Arrian, Diss. Epict. 11. 22 (speaking of Priam’s children) : (8) ‘ piacula,’ ‘lustramina’ (Prov. xxi. 18, 153; ‘expiationis pretium ’),—in ref. “to victims, &c. sacrificed to avert a great public calamity (kafdpuata) ; so Olsh., Osiander, al. The associated mep'Wnua, as well as the whole tenor of the passage (see Hofm.), ob- viously points to (a) as the true meaning in the present case: so Vulg., Syr., and all the versions except Arm., where the derivative meaning of ‘ludibrium’ (armor rad geuvxro!, Cicumenius) is apparently adopted. For further details, see Wolf in loc. (Cure Philol. Vol. mz. p. 358. TdavTev Tepilnpa] ‘ the offscouring of all things,’ ‘res circumquaque abrasa,’ Valckenaer (Scholia, Vol. 11. p. 170), mepikard- fraypa, Hesych. The word appears to have the secondary meaning of ‘piaculum’ (comp. Syr., Auth., and see Tobit v. 18): see, however, the good note of Fritzsche, Handb. z. der Apokr. Part mu. p. 50, and comp. Wolf in loc. The emphatic words ews &prs (connected with éye- vjOnuev) very appropriately close the vigorous paragraph ; comp. ver. II: evTOvoY Thy TAnyIV CwKe mpls TE réAe, Chrys. 78 > > / c A ¢ lal 14 Ovx evtpéray vpas ypadw tavra, GAN ws Teva pov ayamyTa vovlerav: 15 €av yap puplovs TalWaywyovs ExnTE IPOS KOPINSIOYS NPOTH. This is spoken as by a father whose ways ye ought to imitate. I am certainly com- ing. Is it to be in mildness or the con- trary ? 14. vovderav] So Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on slightly prepondera- ting authority: Rec., Lachm., Treg., vovdera. The critical balance is nearly exactly the same as in ver. 13, and the probability of a correction on the part of the transcriber very nearly as great. 14-21. Epilogue to this portion of the Epistle. True charactey and spirit of the foregoing admonition. 14. odK évtpétrav] ‘not as shaming you, ox ws KaTaoxivwr, Chrys. ; the participle here specifying, not the purpose (‘ ut confundam,’ Vulg., Cicum., al.), but the accompaniments or, perhaps more exactly, the general aspect of the action ;—‘ évtpor) in animo Apostoli non finis erat, sed medium,’ Beng. In all such cases the participle has its ‘complemen- tary’ character; it presents in its completeness the character and cir- cumstances of the whole action; ov movnpa Kal picoton youn Taira Aéyw, Theoph.: see Kiihner, Gram- matik, § 481, where this usage of the participle is fully diseussed and illustrated; comp. also Bernhardy, Synt. xtv. 13, p. 475 sq. The nega- tive, as the form of the antithesis suggests (od«—aAAd), does not here, strictly considered, belong simply to the participle, but also, and indeed principally, to the finite verb (‘I do not write as thereby shaming’): the verb and participle form, as it were, a single enunciation over which the negation dominates. vov0erav] ‘ admonishing you.’ The word is a ‘vox media.’ The tone and nature of the vov@érnots, and the general ‘animus admonentis’ must be collected from the associated contrast ; compare with each other Acts xx. 31, Col. iii. 16, and 1 Thess. v.14. Asa general rule, it has a lighter meaning (as here) than either évtpémew or emitinay (vouderhoas ovK éreioa, emityhoas hpeOioa, Synes., cited in Steph. Thesaur. s. v.), and, as its derivation suggests, implies a monitory appeal to the voids rather than a direct rebuke or censure: it passes, however, into this meaning (see 1 Sam. iii. avtovs, in ref. to Eli and his sons; he did appeal to them), and some- times even involves the idea of deeds; see notes on Col. i. 28, 1 Thess. v. 12, and comp. Cremer, Worterb. p. 444, who, however, too much interpolates the ‘animus ad- monentis.’ 15. €av yap «.7.A.] ‘ For though ye may have ten thousand tutors in Christ :’ ground and justification of the form of the Apostle’s vov8ernats ; ‘spiritualis paternitas singularem necessitudinem et affectionem con- junctam habet, pre omni alia pro- pinquitate,’ Beng. The distinction between upto: (‘ innumerabiles ’) and utp (‘decem millia’), though still advocated by Grimm (Lez. s.v.), and even by Winer (G7. § 6. 2), is rightly set aside by Meyer as without real foundation. In ref. to mad- aywyovs (here simply the subsequent teachers ; comp> ch. iii. 6 sq.), see notes on Gal. iii. 24, and on the familiar éy Xpior@ (ideal sphere of the action), notes on Gal. v. 6, Hooker, Serm. ui. Vol. m1. p. 763 12, ove évovdérer EVs 843 PhS Oy> 27. (is) év Xpiot@, ad ov moods watépas* ev yap Xpict@ "Inood dia Tod evayyehiov eya vas eyer- Vyoa. TapaKka® ovy vas, pyntat pov yiverOe. 16 Ai rovto érep a tutv Tysdbeov, os éotiv pov 17 17. pov téexvov] So Lachn., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., Téxvov wou; see ver. 14. The addition of *Incot to XptorG (Lachm., Tisch., [Westc. and Hort]) has good but insufficient critical support. (Keble), Martensen, Dogmatics, § 176, obs. (Transl.) GAN’ od] ‘ yet ye have not;’ emphatic antithesis, the 4Aaé& idiomatically giving point and emphasis to the negation,— ‘assuredly ye have not:’ ‘ signifi- eatur, etiamsi altera res alteram tollere aut minuere videatur, hance tamen locum habere et constare,’ Stallbaum, on Plato, Laches,p.1834; comp. Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 40, Klotz, Devar. Vol. um. p. 93. So ‘at certe’ in Latin; comp. Hand, Tursellinus, Vol.t. p. 427. év yap Xp. ’Ino. «.7.A.] ‘For in Christ Jesus I (and none other; ‘non illi, non alii, Est.) begat you through the Gospel.’ Christ was the sphere in which the action took place (see above), and the Gospel the means (comp. I Pet. 1. 23, 51a Adyou (avros @cov) whereby the spiritual vivification was vouchsafed: ‘ ver- bum spirituale est semen; eo nos- tras animas regenerat solus Deus sud virtute, sed ministrorum operam non exceludit,’ Calv. 16. TapaKxahé oty] ‘ I beseech you then,’—as I stand in this close and tender relation to you; as I am he 6 mp@ros omelpas thy Xpiotiavicmoy év Wuxi, Orig. (Cr. Cat.) in loc. pirntal prov ylveobe] ‘ become «mitators of me;’ viz., as the whole context clearly suggests, in humility and self-sacrifice ; comp. ver. 6-13 @s petpid(w pmerpidcere. & mdoxw maoxete, Theodoret. The expression fiuntal yiveo@e (‘imitatores estote,’ Vulg.; ‘assimilamini,’ Aith.) marks the closeness of the following which the Apostle presses on them; they were not merely to be satisfied with saying they were ‘ of Paul,’ but to do what Paul did, and bear what he bore; it was to be imitation: comp. Cenede fi edibles 7, Gl ile good sermon on this text, see Barrow, Works, Vol. 1. p. 335, and on the imitation of Christ generally, Mar- tensen, Chr. Hilics, § 95 sq. Vol. 1. 293 sqq. (Transl.). 17. Ava todo] ‘ For this cause,’ viz. for the sake of promoting and helping onward this imitation; the verse logically and naturally de- pending on the verse immediately preceding. There is no ground whatever (with Beza and others) for regarding this as a new para- graph ; the subject-matter is slightly changed, but the general thought is continuous. The addition of aird (Tisch., Westc. and Hort marg.) is supported by two first-class MSS., but independently of opposing ex- ternal authority, has the aspect of an emphasizing addition. émepwa tuiv Trn.] ‘LT have sent to you Timothy.’ Timothy had started prior to the letter, but, having first to go through Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), would not arrive at Corinth till after the letter (see below ch. xvi. 80 POS KOPINGIOYS MPOTH. 4 > A ‘ x 5 , a oe | Téxvov ayamnrov Kat murTOv ev Kupiw, os tpas c 2 , ‘ c , ‘ lal dvapynoer Tas Odovs pov Tas ev Xpiota, Kales ae} , - , , 18 mavtaxod ev maon exkrnole diuddoKkw. 10). The Apostle first heard of the parties and party-spirit at Corinth from some of the household of Chloe (ch. i. 11); whereupon he sent, as is here specified, his faithful friend and follower. bs éorly wou k.t.A.] ‘who is my child, beloved and faithful in the Lord;’ comp. 1 Tim. i. 2, 18, 2 Tim.i. 2. The latter words of this clause seem to form a kind of secondary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 442. 6). Timothy was the Apostle’s own child, and so one appropriately sent to those who stood in the same relation to the Apostle, a téxvov to rékva (ver. 14) ; and besides this he was beloved (comp. ver. 14) and faithful, and that too in the only sphere in which love and faithfulness attained their true proportions,—év Kupig. This we need hardly add is not év tots Kara Kipiov mpdymacw, Chrys.; comp. notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. 8s bpag avapv. «.T-A-] ‘who shall put you in remembrance, or bring back to your remembrance, my ways which are in Christ,—and which you would now seem to have for- gotten ; AfOny 5é abrav 6 Adyos Karn- yopet, Theod. In this second mem- ber, which, it may be observed, pre- serves its relatival form instead of lapsing, as more usual, into the demonstrative form (see Kiihner, G7. 561.1), the relative has perhaps a slight tinge of causality, or rather of that explanatory force which is often to be traced in its use; see ch. I. 30, and notes in loc., and on Col. i. 18, 25, and comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s.v. U1. 3, Vol. m. p. 371. The d5oé of the Apostle further specified as ‘As ai év XpiorgG were those courses of faithfulness, simplicity, and self- denial (ch. 1.17, ii. 1 sq.) which the Apostle followed at Corinth, and especially refers to in this Epis- tle. Kaba>s TavTaxod K.T-A.] ‘as I teach everywhere im every Church,’—not merely at Corinth, but everywhere else: if kal had been in- serted the contrast would have been brought out more distinctly. The ka8es does not here simply specify (a) what was expressed generally in the foregoing words (Alf.), nor (8) the accordance of Timothy’s teaching ‘ with that of his spiritual father, (Hofm.), as the kxa@%s would thus have to be regarded as more exclu- sively dependent on avauvjoe than the tenor of the passage warrants, but,—in accordance with the normal meaning of the word,—(y) the form and manner (‘according as,’ ‘even as’) of the teaching,—its simplicity, humility, and absence of selfish ele- ments (see last note), as manifested not merely under the peculiar cir- cumstances of the Church of Corinth, but, as he says, emphatically, every- where: ‘nihil peculiare vobis in- jungo,’ Estius. 18. so pr épxopwévov S€ pov] ‘ But as though I were not coming ;’ contrast between the mistaken opinion of some at Corinth and the true cir- cumstances of the case, the later position of d& being simply caused by the practical union of the first three words; comp. Klotz, Devar. p- 378 sq., Kiihner, Gr. § 528. I. The Apostle precludes the supposi- tion that the sending of Timothy implied any fear on his own part ; ’ TY: 18, TO, 20,27. 4 81 x > / , ‘\ c “~ 5 rd , B) «epxopevov dé pov Tpos tas ehvowOnody Twves* ehevoomat SE TaXEwS TPs Duas, eav 6 KUpuos 19 Oadyon, Kal yrdooouat ov TOV Adyov Tov TEpvTW- pevov adda THY Svvapw* ov yap &v héyw % Baor- lal lal > hela Tod Oeod GdN ev Suvape. ri Oédere; ev if was not a case of dmdy 5é Oappa, 2Cor.x.1. Onthis use of ws, as marking the aspect (and that aspect an erroneous one) under which the case was regarded, see notes on Col. iii. 23, and compare Donaldson, Gr. § 590. epvors0noay] ‘were puffed up,’ ‘inflati sunt,’ Vulg.: ‘ vitium Corinthiis frequens, inflatio,’ Beng. For aught the tense says they may be so still (‘are puffed up,’ Auth:, Rey.), but what is here stated is simply an historic fact: see notes on Phil. i. 29; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 13. 19. taxéws] ‘quickly,’—yet not so quickly as to preclude a stay at Ephesus till Pentecost; see below, ch. xvi. 8. éav 6 Ktpios Gedyjon] ‘if the Lord will;’ so James iv. 15, and sim. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. It is very doubtful whether the First or the Second person of the blessed Trinity is here referred to. Meyer (on Rom. xv. 32, critical note) urges that the Apostle, in all refer- ences to the divine working, either in the realms of power or of grace, always uses @é€Anua in relation to God the Father; and that where the @€Anua of our Lord is referred to (Eph. vy. 17), the reference is to ‘ the moral will.’ If this be true, the re- ference here would be to God the Father. The reference in ver. 17 to our Lord might seem to make it more natural to continue the refer- ence to Him in this verse also (comp. also ch. xvi. 7, where the ref. to our Lord is the more prob- able); but, as there is a slight break in thought between ver. 18 20 2i and 19, perhaps the view of Meyer may be accepted. On the force of the tense (@Ajon), comp. notes on ch. vii. 8. THV Stvap.yv] ‘ the power.” What power? Cer- tainly not their power in reference to any miraculous manifestations (Chrys.), and scarcely their power in its moral and ethical aspect (Osiander), or in spreading the Gospel (Meyer), but, as ver. 20 seems to suggest, their power in its spiritual character; scil. whether they have, or have not, the only true power, the power of the Spirit; see ch. ii. 4, I Thess. i. 5. 20. ov yap «.7.A.] ‘Hor the kingdom of God is not in word, but im power; confirmatory of, and in justification of, the clause which had just preceded, yvéocoua x.7.A.: the kingdom of God is not in, has not as its substratum, Adyos, but ddvauts. On the meaning of the frequently recurring expression BagiAcla toi @cov (the developing kingdom of our Redeemer, the Messianic kingdom : ‘the kingdom indeed is prepared, but the children of it are being pre- pared,’ Luther), see notes and reff. on Gal. v. 21, and on the modern meanings of this expression, Harless, Ethics, § 17.7, Martensen, Ethics, § 45, Rothe, Dogmatik, Part uz. § 2, p: Y- 21. tt Oédrere] ‘ What will ye?’ scil. which of the two alternatives ? the ti being here, as the context implies, equivalent in meaning to métepov or TL ex Tay Bvo0 (Matth. xxi. 31), but sharper and more emphatic. G 82 ’ MIPOS KOPINOIOYS ITPOTH. paBdw €Ow pds tyas, } &v ayarn mvevpart TE TPavTyTOos ; Ms > | TE ca “Odws akoveTrar ev vuiv tropveia, There is a case of grievous sin among you which must be punished. Purge out old leaven. Meyer refers to the note of Stall- baum on Plato, Phileb. p. 52 D, where this usage is well discussed. It is, however, a case which speaks for itself. év GBS EAB) ‘am I to come with a rod?’ scil. provided with, accompanied with,— the primary idea of environment passing easily into that of accom- paniment (comp. Luke xiv. 31, and notes on Col. ii. 7), and thence of being provided or supplied with; see Heb. ix. 25, év aiuars addorp!g, 1 John v. 6, é¢v 7@ #5aT1, and comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, and hereon Winer, Gr. § 48. 3.6; see also Buttm. N. T. Gr. § 147. 10. The deliberative sub- junctive €Aéw may either be regarded as dependent on a latent @€Aere (comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 4. 0) or, more naturally, as simply independ- ent, and commencing a second in- terrogation; see Mark xii. 14, Rom. vi. I, and comp. exx. in Kriiger, Sprachl. § 54. 2. 3- mvetpat. mpatitntos) ‘the spirit of meekness ;’ the spirit of which the characterizing quality (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 5. 13) is mpaiirns, and of which the inworking power is the Holy Spirit. In all these passages where mvedua is thus joined with an abstract genitive, a reference to the Holy Spirit is always involved,—in some cases more directly (compare 2 Tim. i. 7, and notes im loc.),—in others, as here, more remotely; see notes on Gal. vi. 1, and on Eph. i. 17. The meaning of pains (gentle submissiveness to God as well as to man), one of the true fruits of the Spirit (Gal. v. 23) is discussed in the notes on that passage. It may be noticed that in several older expositors (so also in Lachm.) this verse forms the beginning of a new paragraph. The absence of all con- necting particles at the beginning of ch. v. 1., and the link of thought, as to the Apostle’s coming, between ver. 18, 19 and the present verse, point strongly the other way. II. CENSURE OF NOTORIOUS SINS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH (ch. v. I— ch. vi. 20). 1-8. The case of the incestuous person. I.”Odws] Actually, absolutely,—with a very distinct em- phasis, to bring out the revolting nature of the case, and to justify the question of the foregoing verse ; mAnktin@s, Chrys.; évéepnve thy rhs aromias timepBodnv, Theod.; see ch. vi. 7, xv. 29, and with a negative, Matth. v. 34. The meaning of this word is slightly under debate. It may signify (a) ‘in summa’ (so appy. Syr.), eg. Plato, Rep. rv. 3. 437 B, Subqv Kal mewhy Kal bAws tas émOuutas);—a meaning, however, here obviously inappropriate ; or (b) ‘commonly,’ Auth.,— with reference to the general circulation and pre- valence of the report;—a meaning of doubtful lexical authority, and certainly exegetically unsatisfactory ; as the Apostle would not be likely to base what follows on the prevalence of the report, but on the actual facts of the case; or lastly (c) ‘abso- lutely,’ ‘ actually,’—a meaning of sy 1/2. 83 % 4 9 \ kal ToLavTy Topveta NTLs OvdE ev Tots eOverw, wore , lal ‘\ ” nw yuvaika Twa TOU TaTpos EXEW. Kal Duels TepUTIW- 2 1. €v tois €@veow] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds évoud¢erat. good lexical authority (comp. Plut. Mor. p. 415 ¥), and certainly in harmony with the emphatic tenor of the context: so Rey., appy. Arm., and, probably, Vulg.,‘omnino,’ —except that this last word admits of even a greater variety of meanings than éAws. This last meaning is clearly to be preferred: comp. the paraphrase of Beng.,—‘éaAws nulla debebat in vobis audiri scortatio; at auditur éAws,’ Beng. akoveTrat ev tyuiv] ‘is heard of, ts reported, among you; the év tut being very clearly connected with akoverat, and marking, not those about whom (‘ de vobis,’ Beng.), but among whom,—in the Christian Church of Corinth,—the report was circulating. The Apostle most likely heard the sad story from the same persons who told him of the fac- tions (ch. i. 11); it was unhappily only too well known; ‘nihil aliud auditur,’ Wetst. Kal To.tavTn topvela] ‘and (let me add) fornication of such a kind ;’ thera having here its ascensive, or rather climactic force, and both specifying the nature of the ropvefa and mark- ing its revolting character; see notes on 1 Thess. i. 6, and comp. Buttm. N. T. Gr. § 149.8. h. In reference to the statement made in this clause, it may be observed that the fewness of the recorded cases, as well as the horror with which such cases were always regarded, fully justifies the Apostle’s declaration that such a form of xopyela truly did not exist (akoverat is not to be supplied) even among the heathen; see the exx. and quotations in Wetstein in loc. Gore yvvaixa «.7.A.] ‘that one should have the wife of his father ;’ the éore with its usual and proper force (‘consecutio alicujus rei ex antecedentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Ii. p. 771) introducing the ‘ consecu- tive’ or illative clause (Donaldson, Gr. § 596), and the prominence of the words yur. rod matpés, as well as the form of expression (not MnTpuia), bringing out the shocking nature of the sin ; comp. Lev. xviii. 8. Whe- ther we are to suppose that it went to the extent of a marriage is doubt- ful. A monstrous rule specified by Maimonides (see Wetst. in loc., and comp. Selden, de Jure Nat. 1. 4) in reference to proselytes, who, as being new-born and utterly other persons, could contract such marriages, makes it just possible that here such an enormity might have taken place; but it certainly seems more natural (with Hofm.) to regard it as an act of incestuous concubinage. The aor. participles mo:hoas, ver. 2, and KatTepyarduevos, ver. 3 (De Wette, Meyer) really do not prove anything, and éxew, though commonly thus used in the N. T. with reference to marriage (ch. vii. 2, 29, Matt. xiv. 4; xxil. 8), is also used otherwise; comp. John iv. 18. The father of the man was appy. still alive; see 2 Cor. vii. 12. 2. kal bets K.7.A.] ‘and ye (em- phatic,—ye among whom such a shameful sin finds a place, and per- haps even toleration) are puffed up.’ The majority of modern editors (Lachn., Tisch., Treq., Weste. and G2 84 ‘ MiPOS KOPINEIOYS TMPOTH. 7 al pevor ore, kai ovxt paddov erevOnoate, va apOy 3, €k pécov bar 6 Td Epyov TovTO Tojoas. Eya pev A an »” yap, dmav TO cépate Tapov S€ TO TvEdpatL, dn 2. &p07] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority : Rec., Eap6n. mownoas| So Rec., Lachm., T'reg., Rev., on apparently preponderating authority: Tisch., Westc. and Hort, mpatas. Decision is here very difficult, internal considerations being really as balanced as the external evidence. 3- adv] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly pre- ponderating authority ; Rec. os amay, Hort) and commentators take this verse interrogatively,—probably on account of the vast preponderance of instances in the N. T. in which ovx! is so used. As, however, there are a few instances of the non- interrogative use (ch. x. 29, Luke xii. 51, xiii. 2, 5, John xiii. 10), in all of which, as here, the negation is strong and emphatic (ovx) ‘ fortius negat,’ Grimm ; compare Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1), and as the sudden ques- tion seems to weaken rather than strengthen the calm severity of the words, we decide (with Auth., Rey.) against the interrogation. So, as it would seem, Chrys. (contra Theo- doret), and Origen (Cram. Cat.), riv KaTnyoplay eiapepet. tva &p0q «.7.A.] ‘that so he that had done this deed (of shame) might be removed from among you ;’ not the direct purpose of the émevOqcare (Mey.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 53), which would involve a forced inter- pretation of the word,—nor, on the other hand, the mere result (‘so that,’ Neand.; comp. Chrys., Theod., éore) of the act, but, in that secon- dary telic force in which iva is, cer- tainly more than occasionally, found in the N. T.,—the contemplated issue of the act; see notes on 1 Thess. v. 4, and comp. notes on Eph. i. 17, and even Winer, Gr. § 44.8,—who, with certain verbs, does not deny the weakened usage. The remark of Haupt is thoroughly true —that the idea of purpose frequently presents itself in the N. T. where we should more naturally substitute the idea of consequence; see notes on I John i. 9. The term épyov (here, very nearly, ‘ facinus’ ; ‘actio prava, citra matrimonium.’ Beng.) is used quite generally, the exact shade of meaning being sup- plied by the context. 3. "Ey piv yap) ‘ For I verily,’ ‘For I, for my part;’ confirmation (comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 3) of the iva ap67 of the preceding verse, the pev solitarium (see Hermann, Viger, No. 336) serving to mark the con- trast between the Apostle, in his judgment on the sin, and the Corin- thians and their comparative in- difference : see notes on 1 Thess. il. 18, where this usage of méy is more fully discussed. atTav TO odpartr] ‘being absent in the (my) body,—‘ qué my body;’ the dative marking the object to which the predication of the verb was to be referred. Such a use of the dative is far from uncommon in the N. T., and may be roughly characterized as marking ethical locality; see notes on Gal. i. 22, on 1 Thess. ii. 17, and exx. in Winer, Gr. § 31. 6.a. Wer $e ah 85 4 e ‘ ‘\ 9 a KEKPLKA WS TAP@V TOV OUTWS TOUTO KaTEpyac'dpeEvor, > A> , lal , lal Cal €v T® OvomaTL TOV Kupiov nuav Incov, cvvaxber- 4 4. In this verse Xpiorod is added in each place to “Incod by Rec., but is omitted in each place by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, in the former case by clearly, and in the latter by greatly, preponderating authority. The dative is essentially the case by which the substance of the sen- tence becomes extended in its refer- ence (see Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 261), and so practically the case of definition or limitation ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 423. TO Tvevparte] ‘ the (my) spirit ;’ so very similarly Col. il. 5, et yap Kal rH capr) trem, ? GAAG TH TvevmaTi ovy viv eiul, In both these passages the mvetua is clearly not the Holy Spirit (rvedua dé 7d xdpioua A€yet, Sever.), but the highest part of our composite human nature (‘vis superior imperans, agens in homine,’ Olsh.), and so, that with which man communicates with the Holy Spirit; compare Rom. viii. 16, and see notes on Col. l. c., and on 1 Thess. v. 23. In that highest part, that ‘potior pars’ of our common nature (comp. Gal. vi. 18, 2 Tim. iy. 22), the Apostle is present with the Corinthian Church and gives solemnly his judgment. On the subject of Biblical psychology gene- rally, a subject often alluded to in these notes, the student may be profitably referred to the smaller treatise in Olshausen, Opuscula, Art. v1., the larger and valuable treatise of Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychology (now translated into English,— Clark, Theol. Libr.) and the older but very interesting work of Schu- bert, Geschichte der Seele, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1850). ottTws TOUTO kaTepyacdyp.] ‘ towch- ing him that has thus wrought this thing,’ — probably, ‘thus shamelessly TOV and openly, as you yourselves know only too well.’ The accusative and associated clause loosely hang on Kéxpika (‘ graviter suspensa manet et vibrat oratio,’ Beng.), but struc- turally belong to mapadovva (Est.) in ver. 5,—the accus. Toy of rws K.7.A. being resumed by the roy rovodrov in yer. 5. That xpivew can be thus used semi-absolutely (the objection of Heinrici) may be confirmed by such passages as ch. li. 2, Tit. iii. 12, al. The force of the verb narepy. should not be left unnoticed; ‘ qui tale ac tantum facinus perpetravit,’ Kst. The word occurs about twenty times in St Paul’s Epp., and, in every case, either as here (‘de rebus que fiunt non honeste’), or in the sense of completing or accomplish- ing (‘notat rem arduam’); éyq@ expnoato TG kak@, Sever.; see notes on Eph. vi. 13. 4. ev TO Svémare x«.7.A.] In this verse and the following we have four possible constructions: (a) the connexion of ev TG dvdu. with the participial clause (cvvax- Oevrwy «.7.A.) and of oby TH Svvapme «.7.A. With the infinitival clause (wapadovvat x.T.A., ver. 5); (b) both with the participial clause; (c) both with the infinitival clause ; or lastly (d) ev TG ovdw. «.7.A, With the in- finitival, and oty 7H Suv. «.7.A. with the participial, clause. The Greek commentators, whose judgment in such a matter may rightly have weight with us, appear to prefer (0) ; the solemnity, however, of the formula 86 ITIPOZ KOPINOIOYS TPOTH. TwV VLOV Kal TOD ELOD TVEYpaTOs OdY TH SuVapeL 5 tov Kupiov nav “Inco, tapadovvar Tov TovovTov a an »” an 7 a. T® Satave eis O\cOpov THs TapKds, Wa TO TVEdpLA év T@ oOvéu, and its connexion in passages of a somewhat similar authoritative tenor (comp. Acts iii. 6, iv. 10, xvi. 18, 2° Thess. iii. 6) seem to preponderate in favour of (d), and the connexion with the leading verb. The principle in the early Christian Church was ever,— mav 6 Tt. ay monte ey Adyw } ev epyw, Tavta ev ovduatt Kupiov Inood, Col. iii. 16, where see notes and references as to the general mean- ing (‘in the holy and spiritual ele- ment which His name betokens’) of the weighty formula: tocoirov Sivara: Td bvoua Tov “Inood, Origen. Of the Vv., Syr. and Aith. appear to adopt (6), Arm. to adopt (d),—but in such cases Vy. can scarcely be confidently appealed to, the order of the original being always main- tained where in any way possible. ovv TH Suvdmer]) ‘ together with the power,’ — cbv,as always, marking the coherence (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 13. 1) of the dvvauis with the spirit of the Apostle, and so with the gathered Church. The dvvayis k.7.A. is not a third element or factor, but is that which supports and aids the Apostle, and gives authority and validity to the whole; see Hofm. im loc. St Paul’s spirit with the associated power of Christ is pre- sent with the convoked synod, and with that synod passes the authori- tative sentence. The gravity of the “suspensa oratio’ (Beng.) of these verses is greatly enhanced by the sequence,—the determination of the Apostle, the blessed name in which all was done, the convocation of the synod, the Apostle’s spiritual pre- sence at it, and the all-sustaining power of the Lord with which it was associated, and then, lastly, the terrible but necessary sentence: gplkns peatroy aouvexpérnae Sikacrh- piov, Theodoret. 5. tapadsotvat TO LatavaG] ‘to deliver over to Satan ;’ excommuni- cation (alpew ék puécou, ver. 2), ac- companied, as the context seems distinctly to imply, with the inflic- tion of bodily disease or even death ; see Waterland, on HWundam. ch. 4, Vol. m1. p. 460, and see the com- ments and references in notes on 1 Tim. i. 20, where the formula again occurs: comp. also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 89. c, Vol. m1. p. 15 note (Transl.). The special apo- stolic power to which this formula refers appears before us in the case of Ananias (Acts v. I sq.), was dimly dreaded by Simon (Acts viii. 24), and was actually experienced by Elymas (Acts xili. 9 sq.). This view seems recognized indirectly by the early commentators, but rather as a con- sequence resulting from Satan’s availing himself of the unprotected state of the (excommunicated) man (Ereioty 6 SidBodos ephuous etplokwv THs xdpiros, Theod.), than as the result of direct apostolical discipline. This, however, falls short of the full significance of the expression, and of the simple and natural meaning of the associated clause. Satan is but the subordinated agent who carries out the disciplinary sentence. On the personality of Satan, see Mar- tensen, Dogm. § 102, p. 193 (Transl.), Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 86. 3, Vol. 11. p. 108 sqq. (Transl.), Wo555/ 6. awl €v 7H Hepa Tov Kupiov Inaov. 87 Ov Kadov 6 \ tA c la > ¥ 9 bs! , 4 TO KAVX)NMA VLWY. OUK oldaTe OTL puuxpa Cupn odov 5. Tov Kuplov “Inood] So Rec., Tisch., Treg., Rev., on slightly prepon- derating authority: Lachm. places in brackets juaév "Incod Xpiorod after Kuplov; Westc. and Hort simply read rod Kupiov, but place the added ’Inaot in the margin. appy. insuflicient authority. cig SAcBpov TAS capKés] ‘for the destruction of the flesh;’ for the destruction and complete breaking up of that sensual nature in which and by which he had sinned; proxi- mate purpose of the mapddocis. The man was given over to Satan (iva woidev07, Origen ap. Cramer, Cat. ; comp. 1 Tim. i. 20), that by bodily sufferings or disease the capt (‘ qua peccarat,’ Beng.) might be subdued and indeed destroyed as the ‘fomes peccati.’ The meaning of capt seems here to occupy a. sort of middle ground between its more purely ethical (comp. notes on ch. i. 26, and on Gal. v. 5), and its more simple and physical meaning. It is here the material capt considered as the seat of the sinful motions; comp. notes on Ool. ii. 11, Philippi, Glaubenslehre, Vol. u. p. 231 sq. (ed. 2), and see the useful reff. and comments in Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 521. amveda K.7T.A.] ‘a order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus ;’ further and fuller purpose of the mapddocis. It was the design of the judicial act to destroy that which formed, as it were, the substratum of sensual sin, and thus to save that which was the substratum of the higher life and the medium of communication with the Holy Spirit. Satan thus be- comes the unconscious and over- ruled agent for good. What is destroyed is not an integral part of tva Td The shorter reading is certainly probable, but rests on man, his o@ua (comp. 1 Thess. yv. 23), but that addititious part in which sensual sin made its abode, and which, even in its own simple and material nature, could not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. xv. 50); comp. Chrysostom in loc. and Origen (Cram. Cat.), both of whom rightly explain the tenor of the two clauses. 6. Od Kaddv«.r.Ar.] ‘ Your matter of glorying is not good,’—is not right, or to be commended; xadds here slightly reverting towards its pri- mary idea (Donalds. Cratyl. § 334), and indicating not only the intrinsic character of the kavxnua, but the aspect it would assume in the eyes of every right-judging man. On the distinction between kadbs and ayabds, see notes on Gal. vi. 10, and comp. Cremer, Worterb. p. 340 sq. The matter and subject of boasting which the Apostle thus condemns is the state of the Corinthian Church, which many of those to whom the Apostle was writing deemed highly satisfactory, but which, by its tolera- tion of the unhappy man, was much otherwise; ‘superbiebant perinde ac si omnia fuissent apud se aurea, quum tamen tantum flagitii ac dede- coris inter ipsos foret,’ Calvin in loc. pukpa Cipn] ‘a little leaven ;’ almost, ‘a very little’ (kat Bpaxeta otca, Chrys.), the epithet preceding the substantive, and so being in the position of emphasis; see Winer, Gr. § 61.1. 6; comp : Pe alg ae ne eee 88 IIPOS KOPINGIOY2 ITPOTH. 7 TO dvpapa Cupot ; exxabapate THY mahaav Copny, wa Are veov dipapna, Kabds eare alvpou Kal yap 7. exkaddpare thy «.7.A.] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éxxaddpare ody. The insertion of itp judy (ec.) after judy, is even more clearly to be rejected. Madvig, Synt. § 218. It has been doubted whether the reference is to the sinful man or to his sin in the abstract, and as illustrative of the character of sin generally. Hither is tenable; but the context (ver. 8) seems here in favour of the latter interpretation; in Gal, v. 9 the weight of the argument from the context seems the other way; see notes in loc. The word, with a similar metaphorical reference, is also found in Matt. xiii. 33 (Luke xiii. 21), xvi. 6 (Mark viii, 15, Luke xii. 1); comp. Ignat. Magn. 10, and Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. 1. p. 1299. 7. €xxabdpare k.7.A.] ‘ Purge out the old leaven,’ scil. tov madaidy &v- Opwrov avy Tais mpateow avrod, Orig, (ap, Cram, Cat.), Calv., al., in accor- dance with the view taken in the verse above. The reference to the sinful man in question is adopted by Chrys., al.,—but, from the general tenor of the passage (comp. (un kaklas Kal moynplas, ver. 8), with less probability. The Apostle passes from the specific case to the general exhortation which was naturally suggested byit. It may be doubted whether there is any special refer- ence to the custom of removing all leaven prior to the Passover (Orig. l. c.) The primary command (Exod. xii. 19, xiii. 7) is, however, clearly in the Apostle’s thoughts: as it was with the children of Israel on leaving the land of Egypt, so, metaphorically, must it ever be with the Christian Church; see Hofmann 7 loc. véov vpapa] ‘a new lump,’ a morally renewed community, a body of Christian men duyés kakias, | Theoph. On the distinction between véos (recens, with reference to a former state), and kawds (novus, with reference to the quality of the state), see notes on Col. iii. 10, Eph. iii. 16, iv. 24, and comp. Trench, Synon. § 60, p. 206 sqq. (Lond. 1871), Titmann, Synon.p. 59, and Cremer, Wéorterb. p. 232, 430. The distinction may be succinctly, and with substantial accuracy, ex- pressed in the formula, ‘véos ad tempus, kawds ad rem refertur.’ Trench, loc. cit. p. 214. Kabds éore GLupor) ‘even as ye are wunleavened,’ scil. even as, by principle and profession, ye verily are those who have put away the leaven of sin and wickedness; not, Kabws mpémet elvat buas, Chrys. (comp. Phot.), but ka@es éoré (the auxiliary verb is somewhat emphatic), ‘ as, in your true normal state, ye are.’ The clause, as Bengel rightly observes, depends on the first, rather than the second, clause of the yerse : the com- mand was such as the true idea of Christianity itself suggested. Any reference to an actual celebration of the Passover assumed to be then going on at Corinth (Conyb. and Hows, al.) is neither consistent with the ethical tenor of the context nor in harmony with the ordinary use of &(vuos, which, when having its material reference, is used in ref. to things (e.g. &pros, Exod. xxix. 2, Adyavoy, 1 Chron. xxiii. 29) rather than to persons. kal yap go 0° 89 TO TacKa nuav EeTVOn Xpiotds. wate Eoptalwper, 8 pn ev Chun twarad pydé ev Gin Kakias Kat movn- , > » ee > , > , ie 7 plas, add’ ev alvpous ethuKpivetas Kat adneias. K.t-A.] ‘for owr passover also has been sacrificed, even Christ,’ the yap, as usual, confirming, and the ral marking the actual and existing state of things which adds force to the exhortation : ‘ purge out, I say, the leaven, for, in addition to every other reason, Christ our pure and spotless lamb has been slain ; leaven is incompatible with His sacrificial presence.’ On the use of these associated particles, each of which always preserves its distinctive force, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 642, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 138, the good comments of Kitihner, Gr. § 544. 3. 2, and the note on Phil. ii. 27. Whether the conjunctive or ascensive force of kal is most in prominence, must be gathered from the context. The term racyxa (and so probably ér’@y: Hesych. éopdyn) is here used in its more limited sense of ‘ agnus paschalis’ (Grimm), as in Mark xiy. 12, Luke exit 7s comp. Exod. xi. 21. As the blood of the paschal lamb was an expiatory offering for the sin of each household (Kurtz, Sacrificial Wor- ship of O, T.§ 185, p. 367, Transl.), so the blood of Jesus Christ was the expiatory offering for the sins of the whole world : comp. Oehler, Theology Of On Tasyi54, VOlw it. ps ULAN Sq. where the sacrificial and expiatory character of the Passover is fully recognized. 8. éore «.7.d.] * Wherefore’ or “ Consequently,’ ‘itaque,’ Vulgate ; closing and consequential exhorta- tion in reference to the clause immediately preceding. On this use of écre, the essential idea of which is ‘consecutio alicujus rei ex ante- cedentibus’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p- 771), see notes on Phil. ii. 12. Though it cannot be gathered from these words, or from any words in ver. 8 (see above), that any paschal rites were then being observed at Corinth, yet it is quite reasonable to infer , from the expansion of the simple metaphor into the details of this and the foregoing verse, that the Epistle was written not long before the Passover, and that the thoughts of the approaching festival were then in the Apostle’s mind: comp. ch. xvi. 8, emer 5€ ev Epéeow €ws THS TevTnKkooTHs. The exhorta- tion, however, has a perfectly general application ; mas 6 xpdvos Eoprijs eate Kaipos Tots Xptotiavots, Chrys. Kaktag Kal tovnplas] ‘ malice and wickedness, the former word mark- ing the inward principle (opp. to apetn, Plato, Aristot.; translated by Cicero ‘vitiositas’), the latter the manifestation and outcome of it in action; comp. Rom. i. 29, where the two words are again associated, and see Trench, Synon. § 11, and Cremer, Worterb. p. 328. év GLvpoug etAukpiv. Kal adndetas] ‘in the unleavened elements of sincerity and truth. The term a@duos is general,—all unleavened things, principles, elements. These elements are defined by two genit- ives of so-called apposition (Winer, Gr. § 59. 8. a), or, more exactly, of defimtion (see Buttm. Gr. N. T., p. 68,—the gen. is ever the ‘ explana- tory background,’ Rumpel, Casus- lehre, p. 196), the first of which seems to mark the purity (ka8apds Bios, Theoph., Gicum. ; see 2 Cor. i. 12, ll. 17), the second, the moral 90 POS KOPINSIOYS TPOTH. | 9 "Eypaya bpw €v ™m eTLOTOAH Ta) Avoid all communi- 10 ouvavapiyvucba. répvo.s, ov TaVvTWS cation with fornica- tors, and with all evil livers. TOls TOpVvoLs TOD KOapLOV TOVTOV 7 TOLs TEOvEKTALS 10. ob mdyrws] The omission of xa (Rec.) before these words, the reading kal Gp. instead of } apm, (Rec.) and of apelAere instead of dpelaere, are adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort,—all on greatly preponderating uncial authority. reality (comp. John iii. 21, Eph. v. 9) of the principles. On the meaning and derivation of eiArxplyeia (freedom from foreign admixture: 7d duryés érépov, Etym. M.) see notes on Phil. i. 10, and Trench, Synon. § 85. 9-13. Explanation of a former command relative to fornicators. 9. éypaya év tH émicrodAg] ‘1 wrote to you in the (former) letter,’ scil. in a letter now lost; so Meyer, De Wette, Hofm., and the great majority of modern commentators. Chrysostom and nearly all of the patristic commentators refer these words to the present epistle. But (1) the passages (ver. 2, 6) in which the command is said to be given cannot be regarded as containing anything so specific as that here recapitulated ; (2) the ref. of the same form of words (€v TH émiaToAf) in 2 Cor. vii. 8 to a former, i.e. this present epistle, and (3) the con- tinued reference of this epistle to errors and misconceptions anterior to its being written, leave it scarcely doubtful that the rwées mentioned by Orig. (Cram. Cat.) were right in re- ferring the words to &AAn Tis émiaroA}y See Wordsw. in loc., who shows clearly that the hrs viv ov o@Cerat, assumption that an epistle of St » Paul has been lost really involves no doctrinal difficulty. 2?) cvuvavaplyvucbat K-T.A.] * 20t to keep company with fornicators ;’ ‘ fornicariis,’ Vulg.; the word having in the N. T. (comp. Eph. v. 5) this, and not the darker shade of meaning which it has in classical writers. On the double compound ouvava- plyvvc8a1, comp. notes on 2 Thess. iii. 14. 10. ob mdvrws] ‘not generally, not altogether,’ ‘non omnino,’ Erasm.; limitation of the fore- going negation, the ov coalescing as a single particle and expressing the non-inclusiveness of the command as regards the mépvo Tov Kdguov TovTov; see Winer, Gr. § 61, 5, Buttm. Gr. N. T.p. 334; and comp. Rom. iii. 9, where, how- ever, the meaning is different, and like that of od mdyv (see Hartung, Partik. Vol. a. p. 87), conveys a sharp negation, ‘ nequaquam,’ Vulg. Here the Apostle simply guards his words against being taken too ex- clusively ; he explains that he was not alluding to aliens who might be involved in that sin, but to those who were members of the Church. tovrov] ‘of this world,’of the non- Christian world, tay aAAotplay ris miotews, Theodoret ; comp. ch. iii. 19, Gal. iv. 3, Eph. ii. 2, Col. ii. 8, al., where the same ethical tinge is similarly conveyed by the associated pronoun. Hofmann appears to call this in question, but with that overdrawn and artificial logic which too often mars his otherwise able and suggestive commentary. On ravT ws Tod Kécp0U bak sew oad Bi 91 kal apraéw 7% eidwhoddrpaus, émet dpeideTe apa ex Tov Koopou e&ehOew: viv d€ eypatpa vuiv wy) ovvava- 13 piyvuo Oa, édv tis adehpds dvopalomevos 7 Tdpvos 11. vov] So Lachm., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating authority ; Rec., Tisch., vuvi, but the probability of a correction in favour of the more emphatic form is not inconsiderable. The form 7 (rather than 4) is adopted in all the above-mentioned editions, including Tisch. the various meanings of kécpos, see notes on Gal. iy. 3, and the valuable comments of Harless, Chr. Hthics, § 6. 2 sq., p. 33 sq. (Transl.). 7) Tots mAcovéxtats «-T-A.] ‘or with the covetous and extortionate ;’ the two being associated together with «a’, and under the vinculum of a single article, as making up the full idea of aggressive ¢Aavria. On the term mAcovetia, see Trench, Synon. § 24, and comp. notes on Eph. iv. 19. étrel OpeldeTe K.T.A.] ‘since in such a case ye would have need to go out of the world ;’ the érel with its usual ratiocinative (‘essentiam rei causam reddit,’ Devarius) and retrospective force introducing the logical alter- native, and the &pa, with its regular reference to the existing state of things (‘rebus ita comparatis,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 161), marking the difference of the case from our antecedent notion of it; see Donalds. Gr. § 548. 4. On the causal use of érel as indicated by its prob- able derivation (émi, ei=ém) rovTp et; comp. Curtius, Etym. p. 239), and its approximation in meaning to yap, see Kiihner, Gr. § 569. 1, Donalds. Gr. § 618. The true dis- tinction, however, between the two particles may always be traced: where the subordinate clause is of a confirmatory tenor, there yap is used ; where more of an arguwmen- tative tenor, there éwel is more natural. Jt is used, for example, by Euclid in the commencement of a demonstration (Book 1. 31), or in ref. to an obvious or admitted truth ; see Booki. 17. The particle is not of very frequent occurrence in the N. T., the passages in which the reading is fairly certain being about twenty-seven in all. On the idiomatic use of the imperfect a@pelAere to mark something which, apart from any condition, would certainly have to take place under the circumstances as specified, see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2. a, Kiihner, Gr. 392. 4, and the good note of Stall- baum on Plato, Sympos. p. 190 ¢. II. viv S& Eypaya] ‘but, as it is. I wrote,’ nara tavrny eypava Theodoret; the voy having its logical rather than its merely temporal force (see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 8, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 25), and the éypawa its ordinary aoristic force as in verse 9. The rendering ‘but now I write,’ Rey., al., is grammatically tenable, but appy. less probable, (1) because the €ypaWa would hardly be used in two different senses (the first his- torical, the second epistolary) in two verses so near and nearly con- nected; (2) because it seems more contextually natural that after the Apostle had alluded to what he did not say, he should now specify what he did say. So appy. Syr., Arm., Copt. adeApdsg dvopa- topevos] ‘ bearing the name of a brother. The Corinthians, as it L PS) \ U tuiy Thy Siavotay, 92 IPOS KOPINOIOYS I[POTH. 7) TreoveKTyS 7) EiOwohaTpNs 7) Aotdopos 7 peOvTOs 12 7) apra€, TO TowvTw pydé cvverOiew. Ti yap por 13 Tods e€w kpivew ; OvXL TOUS Eow Duels KpiveTe ; TOUS 12. tos w] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. prefixes kal, would seem, had failed properly to notice that this limitation was to be observed in, or, at any rate, im- mediately inferred from, the com- mand as expressed in the former letter. To refer dvopaCduevos to what follows can hardly be said (with Phot.) ed éxew, as regards either order or interpretation. elSwAoAdTpys] ‘an idolater,’ It is strange that such a sin should have been committed even by a nominal Christian, Social usages, however, and the idol-feasts to which the Apostle refers in chap. viii. may have led to a superstitious recognition of the beings supposed to be represented by the idols, which constituted real The enumeration of sins, it will be observed, is some- what different in ver. 1o and ver. 11: it is, however, doubtful whether any exegetical deductions (comp. Hofm.) can very certainly be drawn from it. pnSe cuvecOlerv] ‘not even to eat with (him) ;’ objective, or as it is sometimes called exposi- tory, clause, dependent on the pre- ceding €ypaa, and climactic to wy) cuvavaulyvucbat. In such a case there was to be even a dissolution of the personal relation. On the circumstances in which such a dissolution is directed in Holy Scripture (comp. 2 Thess. iii. 14, Tit. iii. 10, 2 John 10), see the excellent remarks of Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 48. a, p. 391 sq. (Transl.). 12. tl yap «.7.A.] ‘For what have Ito o with judging them that eldwAoAartpela. are without?’ Confirmatory clause, showing that the Apostle’s words were obviously to be limited to Christians: he had no disciplinary relations with heathens. On the term tovs fw, as designating those who were not ‘ domestici fidei’ (Col. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iv.12; €&w0ev, 1 Tim. ili. 7), see the notes on 1 Tam. iii. 7. The term of €fw0ev is similarly used in Josephus (Bell. Jud. tv. 3), and as in contrast to oixeto: see Kypke, Obss. Vol. 11. p. 198. obxl tovs ~éow x.7.A.] ‘Is it not those within that you judge?’ Justifica- tion of the foregoing question : ‘just as you (iets) confine your judg- ments to your brethren and fellow- Christians, so doI; and, accordingly, so was my judicial command to be limited.’ Without taking kpivew as ‘ pro condemnato habere’ (Erasm.), it is obvious, from the context, that xplvew here involves the idea of a judgment, presumably, im malam partem. It is from the context that this otherwise purely neutral word takes its local hue; comp. the exx. in Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 371. 13. Tovs 8¢ €€w k.7.A.] ‘But them that are without Godjudgeth ;’ ethi- cal present: so Erasm., Beza, Rev., Treg., Westc. and Hort, al.; not fut. ‘shall judge’ (xpive?, Lachm., Tisch.), Vulg., Arm., al., the present marking, with much more force and solemnity, the changeless attribute of God, the true Kpir}s mavtwy, Heb. xii. 23. On this present, aptly termed by Kriiger (Sprachl. § 53. 1) the ‘ allzeitiges A PED ae 95 Pat lal dé €€w 6 Ocds Kpiver. ’E€dpate Tov Tovnpov e€ bav > Cal QUTWV. How can you dare to carry your suits before Let Christian judge Christian. a e lal al ¥ \ Tohua TLS ULWV TpPay (La EX WV TPOS Wak: ‘\ Y 4 aA heathens ? ¢Ov eTEpov Kpiver Oat el TOV GOLKMV, Kat Wrong doers will not enter God’s kingdom. 13. ‘Etdpare] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. ral etapeire. Priisens,’ as serving to mark duration without reference to a beginning or ending, and thence, by a natural transition, what is changeless and unalterable, see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2.4, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 54. 2, Bern- hardy, Synt. x. 2, p. 371. It does not seem probable that this clause is here to be taken interrogatively (Lachm., Rev., Hofm., al.), the whole tenor of the context seeming to point to two antithetical questions, and then the grave enunciation. Efdpate] ‘Put away, Remove;’ without any connecting particle, and so emphatically summing up the command implied in ver. 2 sq., and almost exactly in the very words of the old Law, kal efapets roy movnpdy ef tuav avtay, Deut. xxiv. 7. The movnpos, however, in this last citation is one found guilty of a great though different sin,—stealing and selling one of his brethren. Hofmann, somewhat perversely (the majority of expositors taking the more obvious view) regards rby wovnpdy as referring not to the incestuous man, but to the offender in each case that came before them. VI. 1—11. Reproof for bring- ing their differences before heathen courts, and for the spirit that led to this course. I. ToApd tis tay] ‘ Dare any one of you;’ mapavoulas, Chrys.; compare Valck. TéAuns €oTl Td Tpaypna Kal Schol. Vol. m1. p. 186, who rightly observes that the idea of taking upon oneself (swstinere) is both by deriva- tion and usage to be traced in the word. On the derivation, see Cur- tius, Htym. § 236, p. 199. Another and more general case now calling for the Apostle’s notice, what follows is not linked with what precedes by any connecting particle. Whetherany particular case was in the Apostle’s mind at the time, or whether the tls is used with a merely general reference cannot be determined from anything in the context. The moral question under what circumstances a Christian may rightly appeal to law, is discussed in Rothe, Theol. Hthik, § 923, Vol. 1v. p. 44 sq. (ed. 2.) Tpaywa mwpds Tov Etepov] ‘a matter against his neigh- bour ;’ i.e. ‘a legal matter or case ;’ sensu forensi. Grimm adduces Xen. Mem. 11. 9. 1, Demosth. p. 1120, and Joseph. Antig. xiv. 10. 7. Kptvea@at] ‘go to law ;’ so perhaps in Rom. iii. 4, ev té xkplvecOal ce (‘when thou comest into judg- ment’); comp. Matth. v. 40, and see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 371. éml TOV Gdikov K.7.A. ‘before the unrighteous and not before the saints ;’ éml having here the second of its two primary ideas (‘ super- position, combined with the idea of proximity,’ Donalds. Crat. § 172; comp. Curtius, Htym. § 324), as in Mark xiii. 9, Acts xxiv. 19, xxv. 9, 94 MPOS KOPINOIOY2 ITIPOTH. B. “Ar. 52% a ee * > ¥ bd aK A x 2 ovyt emi trav ayiwv ; 7 odK oldaTE OTL ot ayror TOV a 4 nw KOT LOV Kpwovow ; Kal El ev UutY KplvEeTat 6 KOO LIS, 2. 4 otk] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. omits 7, Xxvi. 2, 1 Tim. v. 19, al.; see Harri- son, Greek Prepos. p. 272 sq. (Phil- adelphia, 1860), where this usage of the prep. is very carefully analysed. The contrast between the two par- ties before whom the kpivec@a: is to take place suggests that the process in the two cases would be different ; before the heathen it would be ac- cording to the legal forms then pre- vailing; before the saints it would be in the form of arbitration (comp. ver. 5, and see notes). On the uses of the term ayo: (here probably, as the use in ver. 2 seems to suggest, members of a spiritual community), see notes on Eph. i. 1, and comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 417 (Oxf. 1843). The question of the lawfulness of going to law esp. in connexion with this chapter is well discussed by Hammond, Practical Catechism, 1. 9, p. 161 (A.-C. Libr.). On the propriety of spiritual persons acting as judges, see Hooker, Eccl. Pol. vu. 15. 3. 2. A ov otSare] ‘Or know ye mot?” ‘Are ye so bold, or, if it be not boldness, soignorant?’ In this formula, which occurs four times in this single chapter (see ver. 9, 16, 19, Kom. ix. 21, xi. 2, 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; compare 1 Cor. ix. 8) and always marks an emphatic interrogation, sometimes not without a tinge of indignation, each particle has its proper force. The disjunctive 4 refers to some foregoing expression (as here) or to some thought which is contained in, and can easily be traced in, the context: ‘ rem in vul- gus notam, et quam nescire turpe sit afferri indicat,’ Fritzsche, in Rom. vi. 3, Vol. 1, p. 357. TOv Ké6cp0v Kptvoday] ‘shall judge the world ;’ at the last day, and as sitting with their Lord in His judgment: comp. Matth. xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30, where, however, only Jews are referred to. Here it is extended to the whole non-Chris- tian world: comp. Wisdom iii. 8, Kpwovot [dixaiwy Wyal, ver. 1] €6vn kal Kpathovvot rAawv; comp. Dan. The &y.ot, after they themselves have risen and been judged (perhaps at an earlier time; comp. Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 152. 1, Vol. tv. p. 389, note), will sit as the ‘assessores, testes, et comprobatores judicii’ (comp. .Grot.): see Platt, Glawbens- lehre, § 77, Vol. m1. p. 349, Rothe, Dogmatik, m. 2. 9, Vol. u. p. 53. The attempt to explain this away by a ref. to Matth. xii. 41, 42 (Chrys. Theodoret, al.) as a judgment kara mapd0erw (Theod.-Mops.), is here in- consistent with the plain tenor of the whole passage, in which all the terms are used in their natural and primary judicial sense; see Calv. im loc. Kal el «.7.A.] ‘And—if the world is judged by (before) you ;’ the kat with its ordi- nary ascensive force introducing with some emphasis the question, and marking the justness by way of consequence, of putting it: see Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 147, Kiihner, Gr. § 521. 3. A similar, but not identical use of kal may be observed in Phil. i. 22; see notes in loc. It is difficult here to express Vii. 22, Kpiua Edwkev aylois. / Vara, 95 > 4 4 3 , L | ie > ¥ 9 avavol éote Kpitnpiwoy éhaxiotwy ; ovk oidate StL 3 ayyéhous Kpwodpev ; pytuye BiwtiKkd. Buwtika pev 4 correctly the exact meaning of ev. Tt is not simply equivalent to tid (Raphel, Annot. Vol. m. p. 325); still less has it any ethical meaning (‘by your example,’ Theoph.) ; it appears chosen as marking the *consessus’ (Kypke) im which, and so, in effect, before which, the kplots took place : see Winer, Gr. § 48. 1. d, and the numerous exx. collected by Kypke, Odss. Vol. . p. 199; comp. also notes on Col. i. 23. avdftol éore x.7T.A.] ‘are ye un- worthy of the smallest courts?’ and so, derivatively, ‘ of holding or passing judgment in such.’ The word kpithpiov, as its termination indicates (Kiihner, Gr. § 330. 5), implies either (a) ‘locus ubi judi- cium habetur,’ James ii. 6, Susann. 49, or (b) ‘instrumentum quo ali- quid exploratur, seu judicatur,’ Diod. Sic. I. 72, Kpithpiovy tay ev TE Biw mpaxbévrwy (citedin Cremer, Worterb. 8. Vv. p. 375). The first meaning seems here the more natural and the most in harmony with ver. 4: so rightly Arm., which in each case adopts a word meaning ‘ court’ or ‘tribunal;’ comp. Ath. The meaning, at any rate, is quite clear, and is correctly expressed in sub- stance by Vulg., ‘ indigni estis qui de minimis judicetis,’ Clarom., Syr., ‘judiciorum minimorum:’ comp. Copt., Auth., Rev. The translation ‘causes ’ (Wordsw.) is not in accord- ance with the lexical usage of the word. 4. ov« olSatre x.7.A.] ‘ Know ye not that we shall judge angels?’ further carrying out of the thought of ver. 2: the elect will hereafter judge not only men but angels. Who these angels are can only be inferred from the context. Just as in 2 Pet. ii. 4 the anarthrous ayyéAwy receives its proper hue from the associated participle (‘when they sinned,’ Rev.), so here the whole tenor of the passage excludes the idea of those angels who, we have no occasion whatever from Scrip- ture to believe, will come under any form of future xptois, but will them- selves rather take part in it: con- sider Matth. xiii. 41, and comp. xvi. 27, XxXv. 31. We cannot therefore hesitate, with all the early exposi- tors, to limit the word here to the evil angels,—of some at least of whom it is specially said that they are awaiting their judgment; see Jude 6. To press xpivew here, as something which, by the circum- stances of the case, must only refer to a mewm and twuwm, and to under- stand by the mysterious clause some vague reference to future relations between the saints and angels in the Redeemer’s future kingdom (Hofm.), is to do violence to all sober princi- ples of interpretation. If the whole context does imply a reference to a future judgment on which an a fortiori argument is founded, then surely that xpiois must be the only kpiots about which we have any knowledge, the kpiois weydAns juépas. In this, to its full extent, whether over angels or men, the saints ‘shall cooperate and take a part,’ Nitzsch, Chr. Doctr. § 219. On this text, see a ‘Concio ad Clerum’ by Light- foot, Works, Vol. v1. p. 83 sqq., and for reff. on the subject of angels generally, notes on ch. iv. 9. wAtLye BLwtiKd] ‘ to say nothing at all of things of this life ;’ coneluding clause dependent on, but not in- cluded in, the foregoing question ; 96 MIPOS KOPIN@IOYS TIPOTH. & > , N » ‘ 5 , > nw oby KpiTypia av exnTe, Tods eEovfevynpevous ev TH so rightly Lachm., De Wette, Meyer, al. On the compound particle ujriye (‘nedum,’ and so, according to the context, ‘multo magis,’ or ‘ multo minus’), see Hermann, Viger, No. 266, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 137, Hartung, Partik. Vol. m. p. 155. In this form the ye has its proper force (‘semper aliquid cogitatione adsumendum est, etiam si id levis- suma oppositione et celeri cogita- tione fieri debet,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 276): it sharpens the conclu- sion (‘to say nothing indeed, when so much might be said,’ ‘ nedum quidem ’), and enhances the force of the comparison; see Hartung, Par- tik. Vol. 1. p. 364, and comp. notes on ch. iv. 8. The exact shade of meaning of fiwrtikos is slightly doubtful: it may mean in a general sense, Kara toy Biov Tovror, Theod.-Mops., comp. Vulg. (‘ seecu- laria’), Copt. (‘opera hujus vite ’), ZEth. (‘ hujus mundi’), or, more par- ticularly, ‘ad rem familiarem perti- nentes,’ Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v., comp. Luke viii. 43. The use of the word in Luke xxi. 34 (kparmdAn kal weOn Kal pepiuvats Biwrikais), and the present context, in which the meum and tuwm idea is obviously predominant, seem in favour of the latter meaning: comp. Polyb. Hist. Iv. 73. 8, Biwrikal xpelar. The word is used appy. first by Aristotle, but is very common in later Greek ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 355- 4. Brotixka piv odv «.7.A.] ‘If then ye verily have courts pertaining to this life, ‘if ye are really so cir- cumstanced as to be obliged to have such tribunals;’ the word Biwrika being repeated with emphasis, and the név oby, with its continuative and retrospective force (‘cum quadam con- clusionis significatione,’ Hermann, Viger, No. 342; compare Biumlein, Partik. p. 181 sq.), carrying out the thought suggested by the last clause. In this combination the wey ‘ rent presentem confirmat; ’ the ody ‘con- clusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficit ;’ Klotz, Devarius, Vol. 1. p-. 663; see notes on Phil. iii. 8. The corrective force of these parti- cles (Donalds. Gr. § 567) appears in the N. T. more clearly under the longer form mevodyye as in Rom. ix. 20, x.18. There is here (opp. to Alf.), as the context shows, no cor- rective force: the command follows on what has been already implied, and is based upon it. €Eovbevnwévors k.T.A.] ‘set them to judge who are held of no account in the Church ;’ imperative, and with ref. to those who were members of the Church, but of little esteem in it: so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm., the Greek expositors, and several recent interpreters. The meaning then will be, ‘if you must have these tri- bunals, appoint as judges men of your own Christian community, and and of least account among you; those really of account will have something better to do;’ the refer- ence here being to litigation before a judge, in ver. 6 to wise and peace- ful arbitration. According to the alternative interpretation, ka8i¢ere is taken as indicative, and interroga- tively, rods efovdevnu. being referred to the heathen judges: so Tisch., Weste. and Hort, De Wette, al. To this latter interpretation there are the grave objections,—(1) that Ka@/ere is a term very inapplicable to judges already appointed, and actually sit- ting as such; (2) that rods efouevn- pevous ev TH €kkAnoia is a harsh TovS War. 0. 97 2kKAnol jrous Kalilere. mpos éevtTpomyy vty exkhynoia, TovTOUS Ka . pos evTpoTyY val 5 A > \ , a P heyw. ovTws ovK Evt Ev Duly OvdEls Todds, ds SuVy- aera Suvakpwvar ava pécov Tov adehpod avTod ; Gia adeAhds preTa ADEAPov KpiveTaL, Kal TOUTO emt 6 5. eu ev duty ovdels copds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, the &u resting on very clearly, and the ovdels on greatly, preponder- ating authority: Rec., éorw év duty copds oddé eis. term for the Apostle to use in refer- ence to the heathen (contrast ch. v. 12), whereas in the application to Christians the language is that of indignation and wrong (ka@amrrduevos avra@y, Chrys.), and so not out of place. The heathen were étw0ev, but not ckovleyvnuévor. It thus seems best to maintain the early and tra- ditional interpretation above speci- fied. The tovrovs, as its position shows, is emphatic, and concentrates the attention on the foregoing Tov’s etovdey.: see Kiihner, Gr. § 469. 4, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 7. 5 (comp. § 51. 5. 1), and notes on Galea. 7: 5. mpdos évtpomiv tiv Aéyo) ‘Isay this to you to move you to shame ;’ with reference to the fore- going clause, as in ch. xv. 34. To refer this clause to what follows weakens the force of the indignant question, and leaves the somewhat unusual command in ver. 4 without the explanatory comment which this clause seems expressly designed to supply: so Theodorus (Cram. Cat.), Cicum., and appy. also Chrys., who prefixes TovTo, otTws ovK éve «.7.A.] ‘Is it so that there is no wise nan among you ;’ the oirws marking simply the state of things (‘quum hee ita sint’) which existed in the Corinthian Church; comp. Hermann, Viger, Append. x. p. 748 (London, 1824). Chrys. and others regard the oJrws as intensifying the assumption, and marking the com- pleteness of the lack which the Apostle was forced to believe existed among them, ‘Is there so utterly a lack of wise men,’ omdvis avip@y cuveray map’ duiv;’ Chrys. (comp. notes on Gal. iii. 1) ; but the objection seems decisive, — that thus an apodosis would seem to be wanting. It is not so much the degree of the lack, as the fact of it, on which the Apostle bases his question. bs Suviic- erat dtaxptvar] ‘who shall be able (whenever the case arises) to decide ;’ the reference being here to arbitra- tion. Such a mode of deciding questions was not unknown to the Jews (see esp. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc.), and, if not formally adopted from them by Christians, was, at any rate, such a mode of deciding questions as ought at once to sug- gest itself to men who, in any true sense, were aeAgol. The use of the singular (‘ between his brother’ and the brother complained of by him), is apparently to mark the individual dealing with each case which was to characterize true Christian arbitra- tion. It was not to be a matter of courts and precedents, but of per- sonal and individual investigation. 6. &AAG GSeAGSsS k-T.A-] ‘ Nay,— brother goeth to law with brother : sharp antithesis to the thought con- tained in the foregoing question, a@Aa having here its fundamental H &C., TocavTyn 98 MPOS KOPINOIOYS [MPOTH. > , 4 ‘ be ad 4 ki 7 > 4 7 amiotwv. on LEV OvY OhwS NTTHUA VAW ETTW OTL 7. vtyiv} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority; Rec. év duiv, Idiom requires the prep. in trans- lation. meaning (‘aliud hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) sharply enunciated ; see Klotz, p. 11, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 36, Biumlein, Partik. p. 10 sq. The punctuation adopted by some recent editors according to which adda would be in its ordinary sequence to the negation in ver. 5, and the question postponed to the end of the present verse (so Rev.), is gram- matically tenable, but less in har- mony with the sharp, indignant tone which marks these verses: comp. ver. 8. To make this verse a second question (Treg., al.) is open to the same objection; the question dilutes the force of the directly- enunciated fact and of the involved censure. Kal TodTo] ‘and this too,’—the kat with its ascensive force (‘et quidem;’ see notes on Phil. iv. 12) throwing its emphasis on the retrospective todo, and (as in Rom. xiii. §1; comp. Eph. ii.8, Phil.i. 28) adding a further and enhancing particular ; compare the more common kal taira (Heb. xi. 12) of the classical writers, and see exx. in notes to Viger, Idiot. rv. 16, p. 176 (Lond. 1824), Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 146. Not only was there direct litigation (instead of brotherly arbitration) but litiga- tion in heathen courts: ef yap al xa’ éavtd To Mpayua apdprnua Td mpos adeApoy KplvecOa, Td Kal emt ekwtixnav molay €xEer ovyyveuny; Chrys. 7 loc. 7. Sn pev otv «.7.A.] ‘ Verily there is at once quite a falling short im you,’ scil. ‘ you are at once much the worse for it in regard of spiritual blessings ’ (see below) ; the #57 here, with its logical, but still definitely underlying temporal force (reference to a result prior to what might have been looked for; see Heller, cited by Kiihner, Gr. § 499. 1, foot-note), sharply directing the thought to the state of things to which the Apostle had just referred (‘brother going to law with brother, and that too before unbelievers,’ ver. 6), and en- hancing the continuative and retro- spective év ofv,—on which see notes on ver 4. The meaning, especially of #5y, is fairly brought out by Chrys., i) tolvuv Aéye, Ths HBlenoev ; evredbey yap Hin oe Katakplyw amd Tov SixdCecOa, In regard of #5n and its difference from viv (on which see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 6), it may be remarked that while viv, as its very derivation suggests [vefov; Sanser. 2], refers primarily and mainly to present time, #57, ety- mologically considered (Donaldson, Cratyl. § 202; but see also Curtius, Eitym. p. 561), seems to mark ‘ near- ness to the here,’ and thence de- rivatively, ‘nearness tothenow:’ the further idea of ‘ priority to that ow,” or, generally, ‘ priority to what might have been supposed,’ emerges natu- rally, and seems to constitute the underlying meaning of this somewhat difficult particle. It here marks idiomatically logical proximity and immediateness (Vulg., ‘ jam’), and may be rendered as above, though with some loss of the exact shade of force which the particle seems here to convey: see Kiihner, Gr. § 499. 2, and comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 600 sq., Hartung, Partik. VIS, 8; 9: 99 Kpiwara exere pe” EavTdv. Sid Ti ovyt paddov adixciobe ; Sid Ti ody! wadov dtoorepeiaHe; GNA 8 duels AdiKetre Kal droaTEpeEtTe, Kal TOUTO adeAgods. } ov« oldare, OTL ddikot Ocod Bacrdrelav od KAy- 9 8. otro] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Horé, with very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., radra, Q. Geov Bacirelay] Vol. 1. p. 240 sq., and Biumlein, Partik. p. 38 sqq., by whom, how- ever, the essential force of the particle seems a little lost sight of. AtTnpa] ‘ falling short,’ ‘detrimentum,’ Copt., ‘ loss,’ Rey. (Marg.); scil. of spiritual ful- ness, or, more probably, of the blessings of God’s kingdom; comp. ver.9. The usual rendering ‘ fault,’ Auth., ‘delictum,’ Vulg. (compare Syr., Aith., Arm.), does not har- monize so well with the context nor with the general meaning of the word, in which the idea of ‘ defeat ’ {comp. the classical #rtTa, opp. to vixn, Plato, Laches, p. 196 a), with- out any ethical tinge, appears dis- tinctly predominant: comp. Rom. xl. 12 and the comments of Origen (Cat.) on this passage, where jr7Ta- o@a: is contrasted with vixdy: see Grimm, Lew. s. v. Kp(watra wc” Eautayv] ‘lawswiis with each other ;’ literally ‘your own selves’ the pronoun being appy. expressly chosen to mark the in- jurious effects of the litigation to each member of the Church; it was in truth a home injury. On this use of the pronoun, see Kiihner, Gr. § 455. 8. aSiKxetaoOe— atmoatepeiabe] ‘ take wrong—suffer "yourselves to be defrauded,’ ‘ injuriam accipitis—fraudem patimini,’ Vulg., comp. Syr.; the verbs being not in the passive (comp. Clarom., ‘ frauda- So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, o very greatly preponderating authority : Rec., Bactretay Ocad. mini’), but in the middle, as the whole tenor of the question implies that the action of the verb is to be directed not to other objects but to the very subjects of the verb them- selves. On the essential meaning of the middle voice (viz. ‘that the subject of the proposition is the object, or local limitation, of the action’), see the excellent remarks of Donaldson, Gr. § 432, and comp, Kiihner, Gr. § 374. 1 sq. 8. GAA tects] ‘But you on the contrary ;’ the pronoun being emphatic, and the elause expressing the sharp contrast between the actual state of things and what it ought to be. Meyer regards the sentence as a part of what precedes, and so included in the vinculum of the interrogation. This is in itself hard, and contrary to the analogy of verse 6. adedohots] ‘brethren,’—and so, those who ought to be treated in a very dif- ferent way; xademby pev yap kal 7d Toy GhASTpLoy GOiKElyY, TOAAG DE wACov To Toy aiketov, Theodorus. g. 7 ovK otSaTre] ‘Or know ye not:’ ‘is it from wilfulness or a real ignorance of the consequences?’ compare ver. 2. The verse thus passes into a warning and minatory tone; €is ameiAny kaTakAcle Thy wap- alveoty ioxupdrepoy moiay Toy Adyoy, Chrys. ‘ God’s kingdom ; Ocod Bactrclayv] seil. that kingdom , H 2 100 WPOS KOPINOIOYS MPOTH. , ‘ lal »” /, ¥ povonnoovaw ; My mravacbe: ovre répvou ovre > / »¥ ‘ A ‘\ > eldwdodTpat ovTE jLoLXot UTE aakol OvTE apaevo- 10 Kotrat ovTe Khé€mTaL OUTE meoveKTat, ov péeOvcoL, > / 2 9 , lal ov oidopot, ody aprayes Baotielavy Oeod Khypovo- , \ “~ 4 > be] ‘ > 4 Il pyoovow. Kat tavta twes yre* adda amrehovoa- 10. ob pébvoo1] So Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating authority (see below); Rec., Lachm., Treg., obre wébvco. The best authori- ties are here divided. The preponderance, however, is in favour of the text, internal evidence being in its favour, and the Vy. (though claimed for ote) really giving no real evidence either way. The omission of ov (Rec.) before kAnpovouhaoovow is supported by nearly all the older authorities, and adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort. which, begun and established here, has its fullest development and con- summation in the future; hence eAdérw 7 Bacidrela cov, Matth. vi. 10. On the meaning of this inclusive expression, comprehending as it does both the present and the future, see the collection of exx. and the comments in Cremer, Worterb. p. 134 sq., and the notes on Gal.v. 21: comp. also above, notes on ch. iv. 20 (1 Cor.). In the form BaoiArcia tay ovpayay, the term either suggests a contrast to earth and_ earthly hopes and expectations (‘ precide- batur spes regni terreni et invita- bantur omnes ad ceelestia,’ Beng. in Matth. iv. 17), or points more prospectively to the heavenly home of the future. The true Baotrela can only be fully realized ‘ when the fragmentary has given place to the perfect.’ Martensen, Chr. Ethics, § 45, p- 149 (Transl.). Ma wAavacbe] ‘ Be not deceived ;’ passive, as always in this formula, and in ref. to the preceding words; comp. notes on Gal. vy. 21. There were only too many in Corinth who were ready to suggest more hopeful views; see Chrys. i loc. In the enumeration of the vices and sins that occupy the remainder of the verse the Apostle unfolds all that is really included in a term (&5:«01), to which many might have assigned a far less comprehensive meaning. Of the terms that follow in this and the succeeding verse, three relate to the worst sins of the flesh, with which eidwAoAarpeia (including, as it naturally would, revels in heathen temples) and effeminate luxury [in padarol, ‘molles,’ Vulg., paraphras- tically rendered ‘ corruptores,’ Syr., there is not necessarily the darker meaning given to the word by Kypke and others; though it may possibly be involved in it; comp. Arm.] are here not unnaturally as- sociated; three relate to sins in reference to mewm and tuum, in-- cluding in their sequence sins (ué6n, AoSopia) often, to some extent, mixed up with them. There does not, however, seem to be any very studied order in the enumeration; see Gal. v. 19, and notes i loc. Whether this was designedly to show how all are fundamentally one in principle (Hofm.), may perhaps be considered doubtful. II. kal Tatra] ‘and such,’ scil. ‘of such a class or sort;’ not, how- ever, necessarily with any expression of contempt (Mey.), but as con- Wie toy ets 101 abe, adda HyvacOnre, GAAA EdiKaLWOynTE Ev TH dvd- veniently grouping the varied items of the preceding enumeration; see Kiihner, Gr. § 366, obs. In this formula the context may imply a kind of contemptuous reference (see Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 7. p. 281) ; but such a reference here would seem alien to the serious gravity of the passage: comp. Winer, G7. § 23. 5. obs. The Apostle, it will be observed, is careful to notice that some only (not necessarily woAAo/, Cicum.) fell under this charge, and, further, that with them it belonged wholly to the past (Te). amreAovoacGe] ‘ye washed away (your sins);’ middle, with reference to their seek- ing baptism, and submitting them- selves to it; see Acts xxii. 16, and comp. I Cor. x. 2. The passive translation (Vulg., Auth.) may be re- tained as a rough approximation to the meaning, but not as implying that there is any real passive mean- ing implied in the tense; see Winer, Gr. § 38. 4. b. AyidaOn re— eStkardOnre] ‘ye were sanctified— ye were justified:’ by baptism the Corinthian converts were incorpor- ated in the Church of Christ: they received the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii. 38), were renewed by it (Tit. iii. 5), and so were made a@yior ; ‘ sanctificatio ad regenerationem per- tinet,’ Calv. And this was not all. They were also accounted righteous before God, and accepted into a state of favour with Him,—justification being closely connected with Holy Baptism (Tit. ili. 7), and being due to the grace of God as dispensed (to the faithful and repentant) in that sacrament ; see Barrow, Serm. v. Vol. Iv. p. 386 (Oxf. 1830), Waterland, Justification, Vol. v1. p. 10 (Oxf. 1843), and comp. Jackson, Creed, tv. 6, Vol. 11. p. 297, where it is rightly said that ‘all persons baptized may be accounted justified, in the same sense they are dead to sin.’ Barrow properly calls attention to the aorist (here and Rom. vy. 1) as specifying a definite time, viz. ‘at their en- trance into Christianity,’ but he is not exact in regarding, either here or Eph. v. 25, 26, sanctification as ‘importing the same thing with justification.’ The true dependence, viz. ‘ that the first part of sanctifica- tion, the beginning of a new life,’ must precede justification, is stated with clearness and precision by Hammond, Practical Catechism, I. 4, p. 79 (A.-C. Libr.) ; compare Messner, Lehre der Apostel, p. 259. The life of Christians begins with a hallowing movement proceeding from the Spirit (see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 25, p. 226, Clark), and continues as true life only in so far as He vouchsafes to abide in the heart and to develop that movement. In this Epistle, however, the ‘ ordo salutis’ is not set forth with any studied precision (comp. Calv. in loc.), its main purpose being correc- tive rather than soteriological: see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, Part v. 1, p. 272 sq. The thrice repeated aAAa (‘aliud jam hoc esse, quod sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 2) enhances and gives rhetorical force to each statement in the con- trast; see Wilke, Newtest. Rhetorik, § 124, p. 398. év TO dvépare K.7.A.] §in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God;’ clearly to be joined with the three preceding members, the whole clause specifying the holy spheres of divine agency (comp. Mark xvi. 17, Luke x. 17, Acts iii. 102 IIPOS KOPIN@EIOYS IMTPOTH. pate Tod Kupiov "Inood Xpiorod Kai &v 7@ TIvev- Lal oo. «2 Lal poate Tov Ocov nov. 12 Tlavra pou e€eatw, add’ ob ravra The body is not for for- nication, nor are our members to be made those of a harlot. The body is a temple of the Spirit. II. Invotd Xpiorod) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority; Rec. omits Xpiorod. 16, 10, iv. 7, 10, and see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18) with which the washing, sanctifying, and justifying stood in causal connexion. There is here no such studied precision of language as to justify our assigning év 7@ dvduart k.7T.A. to one of the preceding verbs and éy 7@ Mvevuart «.7.A. to another. The spiritual state in which, by God’s grace, the Corinthians now were,is emphatically recited ; then, in a concluding clause, the divine spheres of operation, in which and by which it was brought about. 12—20. Resumption of the sub- ject of fornication: the false argu- ments used to excuse it, and the true deadly nature of the sin. 12. Ndvra wou éfeoriv] * All things are lawful for me,’ or, if it be con- sidered desirable to maintain the mapovou.acia in the second clause of the verse,—‘ all things are in my power;’ scil. all things that are morally, and on true Christian grounds, to be accounted as ad:apopa ; see Sanderson (in his excellent ser- mon on ch. x. 23) Serm. x1. (ad Aulam), p. 508 (Lond. 1686). The principle maintained by the Apostle (see ch. x. 23), and set forth gener- ally in his teaching, had been apparently perverted in its applica- tion by members of the Corinthian Church. It has been doubted whether the sentiment is thus to be referred to the Apostle, or whether it may not be considered a sentiment known by the Apostle to have been used and based on the principle that if it be not wrong to gratify one appetite why should it be wrong to gratify another? Such a view is possible, but there is certainly no one of the usual indications that we have here the sentiment of opponents, nor can we, on such an hypothesis, readily explain the aA’ ot mdéyra cumpepet. If we have the Apostle’s words, brought up by him here, because known to have been misused, the limitation is at once intelligible and natural. The Apostle had been mis- understood in reference to a state- ment he had made (ch. v. 9); here was another and a far graver case, because one of deliberate perver- sion. The personal pronoun wot has here obviously an inclusive reference to Christians generally. It expresses with point and force a statement of general application ; comp. ver. I5, Viil. 13, X. 23, 29, 30, xiv. I1, and see Sanderson, loc. cit. p- 517 (Lond. 1686). aA’ ot mavTa cupdéper] ‘but not alt are profitable ;’ scil. morally profit- able and advantageous (o¥ AvorreAci, Theod.), with general reference to all in any way concerned. In ch. x. 23 the 7d cuupépoy is more precisely stated under the form of olxodou7. otk éya «.7.A.] ‘but I will nor be brought under the power of any- thing ;’ of any practice or anything in which I use my éfoucla: ‘ twés, ulla re. Neutrum, ut mavra,’ Beng. There is no strong emphasis on the Viv trap 385 14: 103 > oupdépe mavra pou e&eotiw, &AN ovK eyw e€- ovotacOycopat U6 TWos. Ta Bpdpata TH Kola, 13 ome t “A 2 c \ \ ‘\ , Kal 7 Kowdla Tots Bpopacw: 6 dé Oeds Kat TavTnv kal TadTa KaTapynoe. TO Oé THua ov TH Topveia, aka TO Kupio, Kai 6 Kvpws TO odpater 6 d€ 14 XN \ ‘\ 4, 54 XP Lal 2 Lal ‘\ Ocds kal Tov Kipiov yyeipey Kat nuas e€eyepet did 14. juas] Hlz. suas, but only with the support of a few mss. eye (‘non ego ! alius audeat per me,’ Beng.): the ey® simply answers to the preceding wo. The really em- phatic word is od«; comp. Acts vii. 48, and see Winer, Gr. § 61.5. What the Apostle says is, that the éfovcia of the Christian must never so be used that the matter or practice to which it extends prove in the sequel to be of over-mastering influence; the free, must not become the fettered, will; comp. Martensen, Chr. Ethics, § 31 sq. On the nature of our Christian liberty, see Sanderson, Serm. v. (ad Populum), p. 241 (Lond, 1686). 13. Ta Bpdpara x.7.A.] ‘ meats are for the belly ;’ appertain to, are intended for: the koiAta is designed to be their tmodoxh. The word Kotla has here its ordinary and primary meaning, not yaorpimapyla (Chrys.): see Suicer, Thesauwr. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 119. These things, the kotAla and the Bpéuara, have relation by way of purpose to each other ; no such relation exists between the caua and mopvela; compare Origen (Cram. Cat.) in loc. 6 8 Ocds x.7.A.] ‘but (in contrast and continuation; not ‘eleganter pro enim,’ Beng.) God will bring to nought both it and them;’ viz. by death and organic change. The first point in the example before us is, that the two things specified stood in a natural and designed relation to each other; the second, that the things are transitory and perishable, and that, by the will and action of their Creator. In the alleged parallel case it was widely different; the cua was not designed for ropyvela, nor was it created karapyetoc@at, but MeraoxnmatiCea@at (see Phil. iii. 20). The deduction from this present clause would obviously be, that these perishable things, as having no rela- tion to the moral and enduring personality, might properly be re- garded as adiapopa: ‘que destru- entur, per se liberum habeant usum,’ Beng. 7d 8 cOpa k.T.A. ] ‘but the body is not for fornica- tion;’ contrasted relation of the things now mentioned with what had preceded; 5¢ having its usual antithetical force, and marking the contrast between the o@ua and the kotAia, between the whole, with all its mysterious future, and the earthly and perishable part. The body is for the Lord; for, as the Aposile says below (ver. 15), our bodies are members of Christ. Kal 6 Kupios to oéparti] ‘and the Lord for the body;’ scil. to use it as an instrument for His service. He who both sanctifies by His Spirit, and finally glorifies, the body (Phil. ili. 20), vouchsafes to stand to it in such a relation as to be in a certain sense for it, even as it is for Him: ‘quanta dignatio,’ Beng. 14. 6 && Ocdg x.7.A.] ‘but God both raised up the Lord, and wiil 104 15 Ths Suvdpews avrov. IIPOS KOPINOIOYS LiPOTH. > ¥ 9 af , ovK oldaTe OTL TA THpaTa tpav pen Xpictov eotw; dpas ovv Ta péhy Tod 16 Xpicrov Toujow Topvys pédy ; pa) yévouto. 7 ovK raise up us (also) by His power ;’ the xal—ral placing the raising up of the Lord and the raising up of us His redeemed, in closest relation and interdependence. This clause stands in parallelism to 6 5€ Oeds «.7.A. in verse 13, and marks by contrast the totally different circumstances of the mere physical part that was designed to perish, and the mysterious whole that was to be raised up and to be changed (ch. xv. 52). There does not seem any very certain dis- tinction between the fjyerpevy and the efeyepel (‘ de primitiis .... de massa dormientium,’ Beng.), the tendency to composition without any clear addition of meaning being one of the characteristics of later Greek. The compound occurs only here and Rom. ix. 17; the simple form (in ref. to the resurrection) very fre- quently, and equally with reference to our Lord and to the dead gener- ally. avrot] This clause may refer to both verbs, but is more naturally connected only with éfeyepet. It was to the latter clause rather than to the former that (in Corinth especi- ally) words indirectly confirming the declaration (‘Quis ergo dubitet? Deus est omnipotens,’ Beng.) were instinctively added: 7 Sdvapis rod ia THs Suvdpews ©cod peyida Katopbovca Kal todTO moimoet, Theoph. 15. Odx otSarTe x.7.A.] ‘ Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ ;’ very portions of Him who is the Head, and with whom the whole body of the faithful, and so each true member of that body, is closely and organically united: see Eph. iy. 16. The present verse repeats in another form, and sub- stantiates, the ground-thought, 7d oGua TG Kuply (ver. 13): the heathen and half-heathen view was, 7d c@ua kowdy mpos Ta (aa (Epict. Dissert. I. 3. 1); the Christian view, 7d c@ua HéAos Tov Xpiotov; compare Har- less, Chr. Ethics, § 44, p. 360 sq. (Transl.). &pas obv «.7.A.] ‘ Having taken away then the mem- bers of Christ ;’ circumstantial participial clause (see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. e), marking by the use of the verb &pas the deliberate and wilful nature of the act, 7d amocmaca Ta MEAN TOU Xpiorod (Theoph.), and the making them péan mépyns : ‘summa in hoc participio inest évdpyera, in- dignitatem rei quasi depingens,’ Beng. It may be doubted whether moimow is the deliberative subj. (Winer, G7. § 41. 4. 6), or the future of ethical possibility (Winer, § 40. 6) The latter is perhaps slightly more probable, the distinction, in such ambiguous cases, appearing to turn upon the greater or less tinge of futurity that seems to be involved in the clause. Here the apas seems to be regarded as prior to the rojow, and so to point rather to the future : censider Eurip. Jon, 771 (quoted by Winer) eirwpev, }) oryGper ; } Th Spac- owev ; where the change of mood is perhaps to be explained on the above principle. 7) yévouto] ‘ Far be it!’ On the use of this interjec. formula as rebutting the inference drawn, or the statement made, by an adversary, see notes on Gal. ii. 18. 16. A ovK otSare] ‘Or know ye not ;’ second proof of the main Vi '¥5,° 16,17. 105 4 © , a , a lal , > oldare OT 6 KOAAGpLEVOS TH TOpYy EV TO"a eoTW; "Eoovta yap, dno, oi Svo eis odpka piav. 6 S€ 17 position—that fornication cannot be regarded, like the use of Bpamara, as something merely 45:dpopoy,—the 4 not referring either to the uy yévorro (Meyer), or to the strong expression mipyns wéAn (De Wette), but simply serving to introduce a second and even stronger form of argument. The Christian who thus sinned, not only took the “éAn Xpiorod and made them “éA7n of the répyn, but became a single cdua with her. & KoAAGpevog TH Tépvy]) ‘he that cleaveth to the harlot’ (with whom for the time he is sinning). The strong word koAAao@a (comp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 134) is studiously chosen as occurring in its compound form in the passage alluded to (Gen. ii. 24; comp. Ecclus. xix. 2, 6 KoAA- émevos mépvas), and as also adding significance to the frightful state- ment which follows. They who were two independent cauara became by their sin ty cua: odkére yap apl- now 7 Tvvovcia Tovs Svo elvat 500, aAX’ év auporepous épyd(era, Chrys. EcovtTat yap «x.7T.A.] ‘for the two shall be, saith He, one flesh: ’ proof from Gen. ii. 24 of the strong ex- pression in the preceding clause. The words primarily relate to what is blest and pure, but, in reference to the natural fact, are equally applic- able to the case which the Apostle is alluding to: comp. Theod. in loc. In the original Hebrew the oi 8vo is not expressed, but the words occur in all the citations of the passage in the N. T., viz. Matth. xix. 5, Mark x. 8, Eph. v. 31, and in the LXX. The insertion in the Greek probably arose, not from any polemical reason (in favour of monogamy, Meyer) but simply to give an antithetical force to the declaration. dnotv]} It may be doubted what nominative is to be supplied to this practically impersonal yerb, whether 7 ypaph (comp. John vii. 38, Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.), or 6 Oeds (comp. Matth. xix. 5, 2 Cor. vi. 2, where this nom- inative is distinctly suggested by the context): the latter is perhaps the more natural; comp. Winer, Gr. § 58. 9, and notes on Eph. iv. 8. Though Adam uttered the words, it was from God that they came: ‘Deus utique per hominem dixit, quod homo prophetando predixit,* August. de Nupt. 1. 4. els odpKka play] ‘one flesh ;’ not ‘ joined into,—a more forcible expression than in’ (Wordsw.),—but simply the Hebraistic rendering (LXX) of the TIN wad of the original ; comp. Guillemard, Hebraisms in N. T. p. 3 (Cambr. 1879). In Attic Greek the meaning would be ‘serve as one flesh’ (comp. Plato, Alcib. 1. p. 126, edBouaia, eis rh éotw ;),—a meaning here obviously untenable: comp. Rost u. Palm, Worterb. s. v. eis, Vol. 1. p. 790. 17. 6 8 koAAGpevos TG Kup.] ‘But he that cleaveth to the Lord ;’ strong antithesis to the 6 KOAA. Ti mépyvn of the preceding verse. The expression is chosen, in part to sustain the antithesis, and in part to express close and intimate union; comp. 2 Kings xviii. 6, €xoAAhOn Te Kupl, Sir. ii. 3, KoAA- HOnre kal ph anoorps, al. The construction of the verb in the LXX is singularly varied: it is used with the genitive (Job xli. 7), dative, and the preposi- a’tp [Kuplp Ocq], 106 18 Ko\\eépevos TO Kupio & treba éotw. THY Topvelav. TIPO KOPINSIOY= MPOTH. Pevyere la) c , a 3X , od Tav a“apTnua O E€av TOoLnoNH av- Opwros éxtds TOV odpatds éoTw* 6 S€ Topretwv > , » cad € , x > » 9 ‘ 1g eis 7d (Ovov Tapa apapTaver. 4 ovK oldarE OTL TO tions eis (Psalm xliii. 26), év (2 Kings v. 27), wera (Ruth ii. 8), wepi (Jer. xiii. 11), wpés (Deut. x. 20), and with otiow (Psalm Ixii. 9). In the N.T. it is only found with a dative, and once (Rey. xviii. 5) with &xpu. év mvetpd éort) is one spirit with Christ: in the purest earthly union it was but €y cua; with Christ is The spirit of the believer so becomes one with the Spirit of the Lord, that the Lord livesin him, and he in the Lord; comp. Gal. ii. 20, and on the blessed nature of this unio mystica, Hooker, Serm. m1. 1, Vol. i. p. 764 sq. (ed. Keble), Rothe, Dogmatik, Part m. § 71: comp. also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 84. b, Vol. 1. p- 458 (Transl.). Truly is it said by Bp. Martensen, ‘ The deepest quietive, the deepest peace and serenity, and at the same time the deepest joy, is to be found only in fellowship with Christ,’ Chr. Ethics, § 110, p. 336 (Clark). 18. @Mevyete THY tropvelav]} ‘ Flee fornication ;’ i.e. ‘don’t argue or parley with this deadly sin;’ sum and substance of the Apostle’s foregoing exhortations,—expressed in this single inclusive- command, and illustrated by the verses which follow. The absence of connecting particles gives a fuller force to the clause. wav GpapTnpa K.T.A. | ‘ Every sin which a man may have committed is outside of the body ;’ ‘extra corpus est,’ Vulg. These somewhat difficult words have re- ceived many interpretations. The common view is that the Apostle is here speaking in a general form, and that the exact words (way x.7.A.) éy mvedua. are not to be pressed (‘tales sen- tentie morales non morose urgende sunt,’ Beng.), there being some sins, e.g. intemperance, which can hardly be said to be completely éxrds Tod cap- atos. The true force of the words and of what the Apostle has already said is, however, thus seriously weakened : there is no other sin which is évrbs 70d céparos in the frightful form in which zopveia is. By it the whole o@ua, inwardly as well as outwardly, is made over to another, and is utterly separated from Christ. Such sins as intemperance or self-murder involve acts injuriously affecting the body, yet done, as it were, from with- out; but the sin of the 6 ropveiwy (observe the tense as contrasted with & éay woinon) is, so to say, within the body, and using it as a direct agent andimplement: see Hofmann in loc. eig TO tSt0ov capa dpaprdaver] ‘sinneth against his own body,’—not merely by dis- honouring or polluting it (Theodorus, Sever.), but by taking it from Christ, making it one body with a harlot, and, especially, by converting it into a direct instrument of sin. It is in the dreadful fact of the capt pia, and all the consequences that flow from it, that the Apostle’s dis- tinction between zopveia and other sins affecting the body is to be fully understood and realized: comp. Neander in loc. Fornication is a sin against the personality, in a form, and to an extent, far beyond that of any other sin of sensuality: see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 41. 3, p- 368 (Transl.). WL.” 29, 90, 20. 107 nw e “~ ‘ A > ew € , 4 , TOA vuwY vaos TOV EV vuLY ayiov IIvevpatos €oTw, ov eExeTE ATO Oeovd; Kal ovK eoTée EavTar, > oer x a , See N Als HhyopaaOnte yap tyns: Sodcate Sy) tiv Ocdv ev 20 19. 4 odx ofSare]‘ Or know ye not:’ elucidatory and confirmatory of the serious statement of the last clause ; ‘ Or, if ye doubt that ropyeia verily is a sin against a man’s own body, know ye not what that body really is?’ Though Yé:oy in one sense, it is strongly otherwise in its true sense; ‘suaviter limitatur 7d pro- prium vy. 18. Ita nostrum est cor- pus ut sit templum Dei,’ Beng. Td cGpa bpdv «.7-A.] ‘your body (i.e. ‘the body of each one of you’) is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,’ comp. Rom. viii. 11. On this distributive use of the singular, exx. of which are found in good Attic prose, especially with plural adjectives, see Kiihner, Gr. § 347.4, Winer, Gr. §27.1. The use with a simple associated genitive, as here (Matth. xvii. 6, Luke ii. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 24, comp. Eph. vi. 14), is rare in earlier Greek, except in poetry: comp. Bernhardy, Synt. 11. 3, p- 60. A few authorities read 7a céuata; but both external evidence and internal (from probability of a correction) show it to be wholly in- admissible. On the anarthrous, but here no less definite, vads (not ‘a temple,’ Rev., Wordsw., but ‘the temple’), see notes on ch. iii. 16, and comp. Origen (Cramer, Cat.), who, in commenting on the verse, passes almost naturally into the definite form. od Exete Grd @cod] ‘which ye have from God ;’ enhancement of the preceding words by a mention of the giver of the blessed gift—Almighty God: kal r¢ meyeder Tis Swpeas, Kal rH atia Tod dedwkéros Karamroez, CEcum. It is hardly necessary to remark that the od is due to the ordinary rule of attraction; see Winer, Gr. § 24. I. This usage seems to bind the rela- tive clause more closely to what has immediately preceded; comp. Tit. iii. 6, where the od almost certainly refers to the nearer, and not the remoter, substantive. Kal ovK éoré Eautadv] ‘and ye are not your own:’ second reason why zopyvela was to be accounted an auapria against the YS:oy c@pa, viz. because the true person, body, soul, and spirit, belonged, not to themselves, but to God. On this genitive with the auxiliary verb, and its various uses, see Donalds. Gr. § 452, cc., Kiihner, Gr. § 418, and the excellent remarks of Rumpel, Casuslehre, p- 281 sq. (Halle, 1845). 20. RyopadcOnrTe yap Tints] ‘ For ye were bought for a price ;’ viz. the precious blood of Christ, as more expressly stated in Eph. i. 7, 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, Rev. v.9; comp. Acts xx. 28,1 Johni.7. The blood of our blessed Lord is the Adrpov : He came, as He Himself says, dodva: thy Wxnv aitod AvTpoy ayTl wodAAGy; see also Mark x. 45, 1 Tim. ii. 6, and the clear statements of Usteri, Lehrb. II. I. I, p. 107. Im regard to the four parts or degrees of redemption (payment of ransom, admission into the Church, exemption from the tyranny of sin, and everlasting sal- vation), see Jackson, Creed, Book rx. Vol. vi. p. 219 (Oxf. 1844), and on the ransoming, as distinguished from the atoning, work of Christ, Kreibig, Versihnungslehre (Introd.) p. 1 sqq. (Berlin, 1878); see also two sermons 108 Led , € lal TW TCWOMATL VLWV, VIL. IIPOS KOPINOIOYS MPOTH. am ; but, if otherwise, IT epi dé Ov epyapare, KaNOV Gy- Itis good to be as I let husband and wife each observe conjugal duty to the other. 20. odémart Sudv] The added words, ka) ev Tr mrvetpari bua, drwd ear Tod @cod (Rec.), have greatly preponderant authority against them, and are omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort. I. eypdpare] Rec., Lachm. [Treg.] add wo with authority of considerable weight. ponderant. on this passage by Farindon, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 495 sqq. _ The gen. Tyjs (not ‘magno pretio,’ Vulg., but simply ‘pretio,’ Clarom., Syr. Copt., al.) is the so-called genitive of price (Kiithner, Gr. § 418. 6),—a gen. perhaps allied to the gen. of amount (see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 17), or to the genitive of relation (Donalds. Gr. § 453, dd), but, more probably, falling under the general idea of causality, as cases occur (e.g. Lysias, 27. 6) in which the instru- mental dative takes the place of this genitive. It must, however, be re- membered that all these definitions of the genitive are only conventional. The true and primary idea of this difficult case would seem to be ‘ limi- tation of the general by the special ;’ and this, it is obvious, may appear under varied aspects : see especially, Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 17, and p. 242 sq. Onthe use and meaning of ayopd(w in the N. T., see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 58. 80£4- carte 87 x«.7.A.] ‘ glorify then God in your body ;’ not ‘ by your body,’ the preposition marking, as usual, the sphere in which, or the swbstratwm on which, the action takes place: see Gal. i. 20, and notes in loc. The particle 57 (only used seven or eight times in the N. T.) has here its usual meaning. It gives force to, and emphasizes, the imperative ; ‘illico rem, de qua precipimus, transigi The authority, however, for the omission seems critically pre- So Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort. jubemus.’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 395, Kuhner, Gr. § 500. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 69.17. 2. The primary meaning of the particle appears to be temporal, the derivation appy. being from the same root-form as the Lat. ‘jam’ (Curtius, Htym. p. 560: most certainly not from Sanscer. div, as Hartung,and even Biumlein, p. 98): this temporal meaning soon merges into the more usual ethical meaning of emphatic retrospect and emphasis generally: see the excellent section of Kiihner on this somewhat protean particle, Gr. § 500. I sqq. III. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RELA- TIVE TO MARRIED AND SINGLE LIFE (ch. vii.). 1-7. Rules for the married. I. Mepi 8 Gv «.7.A.] ‘ Now concern- ing the things which ye wrote to me:’ transition, by means of the 8 metaBarindy (see notes on Gal. i. 11), to another of the subjects which had “been brought before the Apostle by the Corinthian Church; so ver. 25, Vili. I, xii. 1. On this subject, and the party or parties in the Corinthian Church by whom it was brought before the Apostle, much difference of opinion exists. The most reason- able view appears to be this ;—that as there was confessedly in Corinth a party that claimed to be ‘ of Paul,’ and another ‘of Cephas’ (1 Cor. i. 12), and as one of these Apostles was WEES ys 109 , \ ‘\ y a 8 ‘ Oe ‘ 7 Opdr@ yuvaikds py amtecOar* dia dé Tas Topveias 2 EKAOTOS THY EAVTOD yuvatka €xeTW, Kal EKdOTH TOV married, and the other was not, so the adherents of, at least, these two parties might, very conceivably, have differed on the subject, not merely of the expediency, but of the actual rightfulness, of marriage (see ver. 28, 36); and that thus the question might naturally form a not unim- portant portion of the Corinthian letter. It is also not improbable, owing to the ascetic tendencies which early showed themselves in the Church (1 Tim. iv. 3 exhibits this tendency in its distinctly hereti- cal aspects: see notes in loc.), and which perhaps were additionally called out at Corinth by a reaction from the prevailing Jicentiousness of the city, that doubts on the subject of marriage were entertained by some at least of the adherents of all the parties (except perhaps that of Cephas) into which the local Church was unhappily divided. However this may be, the questions addressed to the Apostle on the subject were clearly regarded by him as of great importance, and are answered by him with the greatest circumspec- tion and care. On the sub- ject itself see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1080, Vol. v. p. 11 sq. Harless, Chr. Eth., § 52.1, p. 426 sq. (Transl.), and esp. Martensen, Chr. Ethics, § 4--7, Part m1. §6, p.11 sq. (Transl.) Kahdv dvépém@ «.7.A.] ‘it is good for a man not to touch a woman :”’ as a general principle it is caddy for a man,—not merely profitable or ad- vantageous (Hofm.), but good for him,—simply and morally good (see notes on 1 Thess. v. 21), not to touch (sexually,—Gen. xx. 4, 6, comp. Ruth. ii.9, Prov. vi. 29; so Watvec@at, Philo, de Leg. p. 781, and Lat. ‘ tan- gere’: comp. Valcken. Schol., and Kypke im loc.) a woman; as, how- ever, the verses that follow show, it is a principle that is necessarily to be modified and limited by cireum- stances. While this principle is morally good on the one hand, so, on the other hand, is it right and true to say with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, r/utos 6 yduos ch. xiii. 4. Marriage, indeed, is so highly favoured of God as to signify the mystical union of Christ and His Church: it is to the subject of marriage, then, that the Apostle at once passes. 2. 8a S& Tag topvetas] ‘ But because of the fornications,’ z.e. the commissions of mopyela prevalent at Corinth; the plural denoting the concrete form of the sin specified by the abstract substantive; see esp. the copious list of exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 348. 3. c, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 3, and notes on Gal. v.20. This passage has been urged as an instance of the use of dc to denote purpose directly. It may be doubted whether this is the case. In expressions like 6:4 r/, final cause does seem occasionally to be dis- tinetly marked (Aristot. Phys. 1. 3. 3, ib. 7. 1, al.); in the present case, however, the purpose is really only per consequens,—‘on account of,’ and so inferentially ‘to prevent ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 49. b, but also consider the exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 434. 1. 3. éavrod x.7.A.] ‘ Let each man have his own wife ; ’ not, permissively, ‘ he may have’ (see ver. 15, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 397. 2), but, as the preceding clause serves distinctly to show, with the full and proper im- ey mwacw, €kaoTos TiV 110 IPOS KOPINGIOY TIPOTH. 3 Udiov avdpa eyérw. TH yuvaikt 6 avnp Thy dderjv > / c / \ A \ late] / ¢ ‘ 4 dr0di8dTH, dpoiws S€ Kal H yur7y TO avdpt. 7H yuri) aA 297 i > > / 5 ‘\ ec > 6 Tov idiov oapatos ovK efovordle, aha 6 avyp: c PD A A c > \ ~ 3Q7 , 5 > Gpolws O€ Kal 6 avnp TOV idiov GHpaTos ovK €E- 3. dperdv] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority : Rec. dpeAoudvny edvoiay,—an old (Syrr.), though very obvious, gloss. peratival force, ‘let him have,’ 1. ‘it is morally desirable and right that he should have;’ da 5€ Tas mopvelas elma eis yKpareray cvyvwOel, Theoph. The distinction between the imperative of direct command and the imperative of permission can only be settled by means of the context ; see Winer, Gr. § 43. 1. In this chapter the reader will do well fully to realize the standpoint from which the Apostle speaks, and the circumstances under which he gives his directions. He was addressing the Christian inhabitants of a city notorious for its sensuality and licentiousness ; he was also speak- ing as one who deeply felt the éveataoav avaykny (ver. 26) of the times, and the reality of the need for all who were in earnest, to be, as far as possible, auépimuvor (ver. 32), and so the more free to serve the Lord dmrepirmdorws; he was, lastly, answering grave questions under the conviction that the time was shortened (ver. 29), and the fashion of this world fast passing away. Under the influence of all these deep feelings he gives his counsel ; and the summary of this counsel clearly is,—buh (nret yuvaika., edy dé kal yaunons ovx Huaprtes (ver. 28) ; ‘ semel, nec sud sponte, sed interro- gatus, cclibatum suadet, idque lenissime,’ Beng.; see Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part mt. § 6, p. 14. Meyer rightly calls attention to the clear and emphatic manner in which the verse condemns polygamy and concubinage ; comp. Hofm. i loc. 3. Thv dderdrdryjv] ‘her due,’ se. ‘debitum conjugale,’ Valck. The word épeAt occurs in two other passages in the N. T., Matth. xviii. 32, and Rom. xiii. 7, but is not found elsewhere either in classical or Hellenistic Greek: see Grimm, Lex. s.v., Lobeck, Phryn. p. 90, and for a similar use of xdpis, Valck. Schol. Vol. 11. p. 204: comp. also Wolf im loc. What is said in re- ference to the man is, in the latter portion of the verse, said in reference to the woman; «cimey d@eiAdy dde!- AceoOat amd Tod avdpds, kal Te aydpi amd THs yuvairds, Orig. ap. Cram. Cat. 4. A yvvi «.t.A.] ‘ The wife has no power over her oww body,’ scil. in the matter under consideration ; and conversely. Each must render the 6petAy when the other asks for it. The repetition of the words in reference to the husband is intended distinctly to mark the principle, — ‘jus utrinque est equale,’ Beng.: To 5€ Guotws Sls Keimevoy, didwor voeiv bri ph vourérw 6 avyp ev Tots Kata Tov Yyauov mpayuacw bmepexew Tis eat) Kal todrns Tos ‘yeyaunkéot GAAjAous, Origen, ap. Cram. Cat. Theodoret (in loc.) notices that in this verse the woman is first spoken of in reference to the subject-matter of the verse, €reidy atta: pddiora mpd yuvaikds* do.dTns mpos wii a ato 111 ovoraler, aXNa 7) yury. py) aTrooTeEpEtre aA7ovs, 5 el pte av ek oupddvov mpds Kaipdov, wa oyoa- ONTE TH Tpocevyy Kal Tahw emi Td avTd Fre, Wa 5. cxorAdonre—re] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., sxoAd(nre tH vnorela Kal mpocevxy, Kat wadAw em) rd adTd cuvepxnade, Tay avdpav eidOacw aomdlerOar Thy eyxparetay. 5: py atroorepetite &AAAOVS] * Do not defraud one another ;’ scil. in regard of these conjugal rights. The word is chosen (observe also the tense; pres. not aor.) with re- ference to what has been already said, and fitly shows that, however plausible might be the arguments of a false asceticism (comp. De W.), it did amount to a plain withholding of that which was a due; ‘ congruit hoe verbum cum verbo debendi, ver 3.’ Beng.: see Hofm. i loc. el pyte Gv x.7.A.] ‘unless it should perhaps be by consent ;’ the & here standing without any verb, and prob- ably to be considered as combined with the preceding restrictive ei pati; see Buttm. Gr. N. T. p. 219, and comp. Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 330. The ef pir, in fact, make up a sort of compound word, into which the preceding ef becomes so far merged that the & is attached as adding further condition to what was already conditioned: so, in earlier Greek, ei is sometimes added to a preceding «i uh (nist si); see exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 577. 8, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 525. The verb to be supplied would not be in the optative, as in earlier Greek (Kiihner, Gr. § 577. 1), but either the indicative, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 5, or, more prob- ably, the subjunctive, as in Luke ix, 13, ayopdowmey, ? LA , c ”~ €i parte mopev0evTes amets tva oxo- Adonre] ‘in order that ye may be free for ;’ purpose of the exception, with its two associated conditions, ex cuupdvov (compare Winer, Gr. § 57. d.) and mpds katpdy, It might properly be adopted when special circumstances might suggest more special devotions: ‘interdum accidit, ut omnibus aliis omissis jejunandum sit et orandum, ut cum ingruat aliqua calamitas, si appareat judi- cium ire Dei, vel quum aliquo difficili negotio impedimur, vel quum aliquid agendum est magni momenti, quale est institutio pas- torum,’ Calvin. Such a principle was recognized by the Jews (Ixod. xix. 15, 1 Sam. xxi. 4), and even, the heathens (see Wetst. in loc.): see the numerous reff. on this sub- ject in Fabricius, Biblioth. Antiq. xx. 8, p.584. The whole is summed up in the single sentence,—‘ ab- stinentia previa servit precibus,’ Beng. Kal waAy él Td avtd Are] ‘and may agai come together ;’ dependent on the pre- ceding iva, though the expression of purpose has really died out, and latently passed into that of a kind of permissive direction: comp. the somewhat similar 2 Cor. viii. 7, where, however, the clause stands more isolated, and is probably de- pendent on some verb of command ; see notes on Eph. v. 33. The ex- pression ém) 7d aird (ch. xi. 20, xiv. 23, Luke xvii. 35, Acts i. 15, ii. 1, iii. 1) expresses the idea of locality 112 TIPO KOPINGIOY> NPOTH. \ if ¢ «A € ~ ‘ | > , e lal py repaly vpas 6 Satavas dua THY axpaciay var. 6 rovto dé héyw Kata ovyyvapny, od Kat émuTayny. 7 Oédw dé wavtas avOpdrovs civar w@s Kal esavTov: 7. 0€dAw de] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority. The reading 6€Aw yép (Rec.) is fairly supported, (em tov airéy rémov, Hesych.), and so, in this particular passage, of the again living together as man and wife. Some exx. will be found in Loesner, Obs. p. 165. va py metpdln «-t-A.] ‘i order that Satan may not tempt you be- cause of your mcontinence ;’ pur- pose of the implied counsel contained in the nal wdAw én) 7d adtd Fre, and with special reference to the personal Tempter; ‘non facile est tentatio sine Satana presumenda,’ Beng. On the form akpacia (‘ incon- tinentia,’ Vulg., Copt., ‘concupis- centia corporis,’ Syr.,‘ungahdbains,’ Goth.; comp. Theod.-Mops., [Aéyet] Tov Kpareiy ov Suvduevoy eis Topvelay katapépecGat), the earlier form being axpareia, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 524, It occurs Matth. xxiii. 25, and occa- sionally in Polybius, e. g. Hist. 1. 66. 6, rv. 6. 10, xxx. 11.5. The word is not derived from kpao.s, Kepavyvupt (Wordsw.) but from axpdrns, and has its first syllable short: axpacia (opp. to evxpaoia) is a different word; see Rost u. Palm, Lew. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 82. 6. rotro] This, scil. all that refers to the natural conjugal rela- tions, ver. 3 sq., all which being specified preceptively in form calls forth from the Apostle the state- ment that, though in form kar’ emitayiv, it is to be understood as really kata ovyyvounv. The senti- ment thus is, ‘ Live together as man and wife, except under special cir- cumstances;’ and amounts to a qualified repetition of verse 2. At first sight it might seem plausible to refer the todro simply to that verse (De W.), and to regard the rest as practically parenthetical. The ob- jection, however, that the thought seems to rest not so much on the fact of marriage as on the conjugal relations involved in it, seems suffi- cient to justify the reference, not to ver. 2, but to the verses which follow it. To refer the rodro simply to ver. 5 (Meyer) is open to the obvious objection that the mu amoorepeire GAAhAouvs is only the thy decry ao5.86Tw expressed in another form (see Hofm. in loc.) ; and to refer it merely to a part of that verse ral méAw «.7.A. (Orig., al.) is still less tenable, as that verse obviously forms one connected whole. Kata ovyyvépnv] ‘by way of con- cession,’ ‘secundum indulgentiam,’ Vulg., ‘tanquam infirmis,’ Syr. This word only occurs in the N. T. in this passage. It is, however, com- mon both in classical and in later Greek (LXX, Prol. Ecclus, and ch. ili. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 20 Alew., and frequently in Polybius), and in all cases has the meaning either of ‘venia,’ or (as here) of ‘ indul- gentia;’ Suid. cvyyvaun: cvyxeépnots. That it is here used for yrdun (‘ut significaverit Paulus non esse hoe suum preceptum, sed amici con- silium,’ Valck. i7 loc.), is contrary to the lexical meaning of the word. 7. @é€dw Sé] ‘ Yet I would:’ ex- pression, with clear antithesis to the foregoing verse, of the Apostle’s per- \ Wee Gyr 115 > a ¥ , > lal c ‘ ahha ExacTos tdvov EXEL Kaplopa ex Oeov, oO pev but is apparently an early instance of a correction, the true connexion not having been clearly seen. The other changes, xe: xdpioua for xdpioua Exe, and 6—é for ds—és, are adopted by Lachm. and the other edd. on very greatly preponderating authority. sonal feeling in the matter; ‘ What Ihave said is kata ovyyvéunr, but my own personal desire in the matter is that all should be asIam.’ The sentiment of the first verse is thus in effect reiterated. In regard of the verb 6éAw, it may be remarked that there is nearly always some degree of will-energy expressed by it, whereas in BovAoua itis rather the direction taken by the will that comes into prominence; consider Rom. vii. 15, where @éAw and picd are in a kind of antithesis, and con- trast Acts xviii. 15. The two words are in juxtaposition and in a sort of illustrative contrast in Eurip. Iph. in Aul. 340, T@ Soxeiv pév odxt xpi (av, TE 5€ BovrAcoOa PéAwy; see the careful comments of Cremer, Worterb. s. v. BovAowat, p. 142, and notes on 1 Tim. v. 14. Probably of the many distinctions that have been drawn that of Ellendt will be found to cover the widest area, viz. that @€Aewv marks the desire gener- ally, the instinctive will, BovAccba the desire as founded on some sort ‘of inward deliberation (Lex. Soph. Vol. 1. p. 316); comp. Matth. i. 19, Eph. i. 11 and notes im loc. mwdavtTag av@pdmovs xk.7.A.] ‘that all men should be;’ explanatory adjunct to the predication (Donalds. Gr. § 584), specifying the substance and purport of the @éAw. On this expansion of what has been, not in- appropriately, termed the paratactic accus. (2.e. the accus. dependent on, rather than governed by, the in- transitive verb), see the suggestive remarks of Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 186, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. S Avs 2 On the word itself it may be said that the state of Corinth and the licence connected with the tradi- tional worship of Aphrodite (Strabo, Geogr. vit. 6. 20) might well have called it forth from one who had spent eighteen months in the city, and seen with his own eyes the pre- vailing sensuality and corruption. On the Apostle’s sentiments and teach- ing on this subject, see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1080, Vol. v. p. 12 sq. (ed. 2). 4s kal éwavrTéy] ‘even as myself ;’ scil. év éyxpareia, Chrys., ‘ccelibem,’ Beng.; the ac- cusative being continued by a kind of intelligible attraction; contrast Acts xxvi. 29. On this so-called ‘comparative’ use of kai (comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12), whereby, in clauses where comparison is ex- pressed or implied, the contrasted member of the comparison is brought into prominence and emphasis, see notes on Eph. v. 23. In such cases the particle both coordinates and emphasizes. iSvov éxer xdpiopa] ‘has his own gift of grace ;’ his special gift (in regard of the subject-matter generally,— continence and its degrees) as vouch- safed to him by the Holy Ghost, and flowing forth from God as its source ; see notes on 2 Tim. i. 6, and on the two uses of this word in the N. T., the general and the special, Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 581. See I 114 9 c ‘\ yY OUTS, 6 d€ OUTS. TIPOS KOPINGIOYS TPOTH. 8 Aéyw 8€ Tots aydpows Kat Tats Tis good for the un- also the good article of Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1500 sq. & piv otras x.7.A.] ‘one in this manner and another in that;’ not with special reference to 7d mapOev- evely on the one hand, and 7d yauetv on the other (Theophyl.), but simply and generally, the context suggesting and supplying the appli- cation. The use of o¥rws in each member rather than of o¥rws in the one and exefyws in the other (Isocr. Panath. p. 269 B, TéTe péev exelvws voy 5€ ofrws) belongs to later Greek : see 2 Sam. xi. 25, and comp. Judges xvili. 4, 2 Sam. xvii. 15, al. 8—24. Rules for the wumarried ; and for the married, especially in reference to separation. Chris- tianity in its relation to outward circumstances. 8. Aéyo Se Trois &ydpous] ‘I say also to the unmarried ;’ continuation, in the form of a more distinct direction (Aéeyw), of the sentiment of the pre- ceding verse (0€Aw 5& mdvras k.7.A.), and application of it to the cases of the &%yauo. and the xjpu. There is thus no specially marked transition (‘Now I say’) from the married to the unmarried, but, as the order of the words indicates, a reiteration, by means of the adjunctive 6¢, of the leading sentiment of the chapter (ver. 1) with reference to those who are now coming before the Apostle’s thoughts. It has been thought, from the mention of the x7jpa, that &yauor are to be limited to widowers (see Maier im loc.): the obviously married to remain so, In the case of the married, separation is to be avoided. It is best for each one to remain in the state in which he was called, inclusive tois yeyaunndow (ver. 10) points, however, to a similarly inclu- sive reference,—unmarried, whether male or female, previously married or not. The xal is thus in its ad- junctive, rather than its simply copulative, sense, and adds the special to the general: see notes on Phil. iv. 12. Widows are naturally specified as probably, even at that time, occupying a distinctive posi- tion in the Christian community ; comp. I Tim. v. 3 sq. petvaotv as Kaya] ‘if they should abide even as I;’ scil. &%yapor. The kaAdy is again reiterated; see ver. I. On the «at of comparison (Kays), see the preceding verse. The aor. subjunct. has here its tinge of the future exact, of which tense (with éav) it is the usual representative,— ‘if in the sequel they shall remain’ (‘si permanserint,’ Clarom.): see Kihner, G7. § 389. 6, 7. It should, however, be remembered that édy with the aor. subj. is the more gene- ral and usual form, the present being reserved for cases where the duration of a state is more particularly to be marked; compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 6. 4, Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 382. In regard of the ques- tion whether the Apostle had ever been married or not, it seems enough to say that a mistaken interpreta- tion of Phil. iv. 3 (Clem.-Alex.) can- not be accepted as outweighing the tradition of the Church as expressed in Tertull. de Monog. cap. 8, al. 9. et 8 otk éyKpatetvovTat] ‘ But if they have not continency,’ 2s e€av VIL. 337 9, 10; ¢ 115 N UND Re dad PS , € 3 2 > Se XNpats, KaNOv QAUTOLS CAV MLELWWOL WS Kay@. €bl O€ 9 ovK eykKpaTevovTaL, yapunodtwoay' KpEiTTOV yap éoTw yannoar ) Tupovoba. Tots dé yeyapnkdow 10 8. a’rots] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., abrots éoriv. 9. ‘yauijca) The reading is very doubtful. The present yameiv is adopted by Tisch., Westc. and Hort (with margin): the aorist yaujou, by Rec, ‘have not power over themselves’ (middle) ; the od not here so coalese- ing with the verb as only to express a single idea (see Winer, Gr. § 55.2, Kiihner, Gr. § 513. 4, Herm. Viger, No. 309), but preserving its indepen- dent force (comp. John x. 37, where od ro1@ is more than merely ‘neglect’), though confessedly expending it on the verb with which it is associated. Where a fact has sharply to be brought out, and sharply to be nega- tived, there ef ov seems to be not only permissible, but logically cor- rect. In regard of the connexion of the verse, it may be observed that, as in verse 8 the opening words of the chapter were, in point of fact, reiterated, so here what is said in ver. 2 is practically also repeated. Marriage, in one of its aspects, is the remedy for incontinency: one of the reasons for which it was ordained, as the opening exhortation in our Marriage Service solemnly declares, ‘for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication ;’ see, how- eyer, Harless, Clr. Ethics, § 52, p. 433 (Transl.). The form éy- Kpatevec@a, though only found in the LXX and in the N. T., is recog- nized by the grammarians as a correct form: see Thom. Mag. p. 30 (ed. Bernard), axparevec@ar undauds The condemned word, however, is found in Menander and Aristotle. Kpeitrov] ‘ better ;’ not necessarily as the lesser of two evils (see Raphel els, GAAG ovK eyKpareverBat. im loc.), but as absolutely better, because involving no sin (comp. ver. 28). It is still, however, clear that, so far as the Apostle’s judgment is given, he considers the mévew as Kaya the best course of all. yapurjoat] ‘to marry,’ ‘to enter into the married state,—aor., in con- trast with the present which follows. Two forms of the aorist of this verb occur in the N. T., the earlier éynua (Matth. xxii. 25, Luke xiv. 20) and the later éydunoa (Matth. v. 32, Mark vi. 17, al.): both occur below in ver. 28. The latter form is said to have appeared first in the age of Menander; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 742. tmupovabat|] ‘ to burn’ (present; to continue in that state), ‘uri,’ Vulg., ‘intundnam,’ Goth., i.c., as more fully expressed in Syr., ‘uri concupiscentia’ (b’regto]: evepnvey bon Tis ewOuulas } Tupavris, Chrys. The word occurs occasion- ally in the N. T., sometimes in its literal (Eph. vi. 16, 2 Pet. iii. 12, Rey. i. 15, iii. 18), sometimes in its metaphorical, meaning, as here (in ref. to lust) and 2 Cor. xi. 29 (in ref. to grief: ‘ardere doloribus’): see also 2 Macc. iv. 38, x. 35, xiv. 45, where it is connected with rois Ovuots. The various uses of the word in the LXX and in the eccl. writers will be found in a good article in Suicer, Thesawr. s. v. Vol. u. p. 894 sq. 10. Tots 8 yeyaunKkdéotv trap- ayyéAAw] ‘ But to those that have 12 116 TIPOS KOPINOIOYS ITIPOTH. Tapayyé\iw, ovK eyo adda 6 Kupvos, yuvatka amd II avodpos pi) xopicOnvar (eav dé Kat yopiocOy, pwevérw Lachm., Treg., Rev., with perhaps a slight preponderance of external authority. The internal evidence seems to point the same way, the change to the present being perhaps due to a conformity to the pres. rupotaGa. married I give command ;’ not ‘to the married,’ generally (Arm., Auth.), but ‘to those who have married’ (Copt., which rightly expresses the tense), scil. since they became Christians, and so (in contrast to those who were content to wait for the yaunodrwoav) have acted on their own account: comp. Hofm. am loc. The Apostle speaks here to those who were on both sides Christians, and conveys to them the authoritative command (mapary- yéAAw : see 2 Thess. ili. 4, 6, 10, 12, Mine ne Bai AiG ey eay Ay eee pe al.) which follows,—yuvaika amd Gvdpos wh xwpcOjvat. In ver. 12, 13, he speaks to those who were Christian only on one side, but to them also he gives substantially the same direction, speaking, however, as an inspired Apostle (see below) rather than directly from the Lord. Why the Apostle here speaks pri- marily of the case of the woman does not seem perfectly clear. It may have been from the obvious fact that the case of a woman separating herself would at once seem incompatible with all deeper Christian life; or that the known licence of Hellenic married life, in regard of separation, on the part of the woman as well as of the man (see Hermann, Privatalter- thiimer, § 30. 14 sq.) was prevailing even in Christian Corinth; or, less probably, that ascetic practices might have crept into the Church, against which the Apostle desired (especially in such a context as the present) to direct words of implied warning and prohibition. otk éym GANG 6 Ktptos] ‘not I but the Lord:’ corrective clause, ‘I command—yet not I, but &c.,’ the command having been, in effect, given in the express declarations of our Lord Himself in reference to the subject of divorce (Matth. v. ST, 32, Six. 9) A0., Mark eousd. Luke xvi. 18); émeidy) véuov pnras tmd Tov Xpiorov Tebeyra avaywaokew méeAAeL wep Tod xXwpls mopyetas mh aprevat yuvaika 81a TodTd pyowy, ‘ ovK eyé,’ Chrys. The same great expo- sitor rightly remarks that the ov« éy# implies no more than this: the éy® does not point to St Paul in his merely uninspired character, but throughout the chapter (so in ver. 12) to the Apostle im his imspired character, and as having the Spirit of the Lord (ver. 40) : comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 89. b, Vol. 1. p. 13 sq. (Transl.). amd avSpos ph xwprcOAvar] ‘do not separate herself from her hus- band’ (‘a viro non _ discedere,’ Vulg., ‘separate from,’ Goth., Copt.), the passive voice having here, in effect, a reflexive force. On the really close connexion between the passive and middle voices, of which passages like the present supply an illustration, see Kiihner, Gr. § 378, 4. Whether it be best to adopt a purely passive translation or, as here, a practically reflexive transla- tion, can only be determined by the context. On the explicit nature of this command, and the question of Via. 1%, 12 17 ayapos 7) TO avdpt KaradayyjTw), Kat dvdpa “A ‘ > id yvvatka pn adiévar. Tots S€ Nourots héyw 12 12, Aéyw éyé) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority : divorce generally, see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1081, Vol. v. p. 30 sq. (ed. 2), Martensen, Chr. Etivics, Part m1. § 21, p. 41 sqq. (Transl.). II. éav S& Kal xwproOq] ‘ but if she do separate herself ;’ the ral having here its ‘etiam’ force (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p. 635), and bringing into emphasis the xwpic6F, ‘etiam separata fuerit [* discesserit,’ Vulg.}, contra preceptum,’ Beng. On this and other uses of kal, see notes on Phil. iv. 12; and on the éay with the subjunctive as gener- ally marking objective possibility, i.e. where experience will prove the truth or otherwise of the suppo- sition, see Hermann, Viger, No. 312; but see notes on Gal. i. 9. We must regard this and the following clause as purely parenthetical, the infinitival construction being again continued as if no break had oc- curred. KkaTadhAay7iTo] ‘ be reconciled,’ ‘ reconciliari,’ Vulg., Syr. The passive translation is here more natural than the middle, ‘novum ingenium induere,’ Fritzsche in Rom. vy. 10: the reconciliation would probably be due, at least to some extent, to the intervention of others ; see Rom. v. 10, karnAAdyn- bev t@ Og, 2 Cor. v. 20, Katad- Adynte 7G Oeg, and comp. Matth. Vv. 24, diadAdynhi tHE adeAPG cov. The distinction drawn by Tittmann (Synon. p. 102 sq.) between kataa- Adrtew (‘facere ut alter inimicum animum deponat’) and diadAdrrew (‘efficere, ut que fuit inimicitia mu- tua, ea esse desinat’) isingenious but doubtful; see the careful note of Fritzsche, Rom. l. c. Vol. 1. p. 276. Rec., eye A€éyw. The 5:4 probably denotes the ‘ trans- itum ex alia in aliam conditionem;’ see Winer, Verb. Compos. in N. T. Va Deas kal adv&pa x.7.A.] ‘and that the husband do not part from his wife.’ Attention is called by expositors to the omission of the all-important exception, mapexrds Adyou mopveias (Matth. v. 32, xix. 9). There is, however, no ground what- ever for supposing that such an omission was designed. The Apostle is not considering the question of divorce proper, but of separations of a totally different kind: even in Mark x. 10 and Luke xvi. 18 the exception is not specified. Bengel draws a distinction between the uses here of xwpifer@a (‘ separatur pars ignobilior, mulier’) and agiévac (‘dimittit nobilior, vir’), and main- tains it even in ver. 13, on the ground of the believing wife being really the superior. This is perhaps alittle overstrained. The latter verb is certainly more usual in ref. to the husband, but is also appro- priately used in ref. to the wife in ver. 13, as, in fact, taking upon her- self the responsibility of the separa- tion; see Hofm. in loc. 12. Tots 8 Aottois] ‘ But to the rest say I, not the Lord,’ scil. to those not included in the above directions to the dyduos and the yeyaunndow. Both these classes were Christians: the Apostle is now about to speak to a mixed class, viz. a class in which either husband or wife remained a heathen. In re- gard of such cases our Lord had given no command. The Apostle then, as having the Spirit of God 118 TIPO KOPINOIOYS IIPOTH. > 4 - c , ¥ cu ‘ a ¥ €y, ovx 6 Kupws: e& tis ddehdds yuvatka exer s al lal GTLETOV, Kal aAvT? TvVEevooKEl oiKEly peT’ avTOD, [1 4 > / > , A ‘\ A 4 » »” 5 ” 3 adieTw avtyv' Kal yuryn HTS exer avopa am.oTor, Kal OUVTOS DuVEVOOKEL OiKElW per’ adTAS, pI) adpieTw > n 14 Tov avopa. hyiactar yap 6 avip 6 amiotos ev TH 13. Kal ovros—adierw Toy &vdpa] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., kat aitos—aguérw aut dv, (ver. 40), gives his directions. On éy#, as contrasted with 6 Kupios, see notes on ver. I0. Exe] ‘has ;’ the word being studiously chosen, here and ver. 13, to mark this as a marriage contracted prior to the conversion to Christianity : mept TaY mpd TOU KnpUYyLaTOS cUVAp- Oévtwy evravda pnatv, Theodoret. ovvevSoxet] ‘ consents,’ scil. ‘ agrees with the husband on the subject,’ the ovv referring to the mutual nature of the agreement; comp. 2 Macc. Xi. 35, bwep dv Avolas 6 cuyyevis Tod BactAéws cuvexdpncev syiv, kal ques auvevdoxovpev, The verb occurs (with a dat.) Luke xi. 48, Acts viii. 1, Rom. i. 32, and, without an asso- ciated noun, Acts xxii. 20 (according to the best text). 13. Kal otros x.7.A.] ‘and he consents to dwell with her:’ transition from the relative into the demonstrative. It is of course true that, as Winer says (Gr. § 22. 4), St Paul might here have written és gvvevdore?; the change into the demonstrative form is, however, far more true to the genius of the language, and to the avoidance of the repetition of the relative in the dependent clause; see Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 16, p. 304, Kiihner, Gr. § 561. 1. 2.7) adiétwa Tov G&vSpa} ‘let her not part from her husband ;’ tov &dpa,—though a heathen, he was her husband. On the use of adiéva: in the case of the wife, see notes on ver. II: it isin fact a vor media by means of which the Apostle preserves a strict and literal identity between the rules for the two sexes. *AmoAvew (the regular word in the N. T.; in classical Greek dmoréumew or éxBdAAew: see Bremi, Demosth. p. 92) could not have been used in reference to the wife, nor aoAelrew (the usual word in the case of the wife; see Thomas Mag. s. v. amoAelrev, p. 97, ed. Bernard) in reference to the hus- band. The general sentiment is clear and emphatic, that the con- version to Christianity does not justify the separation of husband and wife, where the non-Christian, whether husband or wife, was willing to dwell with the other. 14. fhylaorat yap «.7-A-] ‘ For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified in the wife ;’ confirmatory of the directions given in the two foregoing verses: ov yivera: dxdOaptos [6 avnp], GAA vikG | Kabapdtns Tis yuvaikds Thy aKxabapoiay tod ayvdpos, Kal vika 7 Kabapétns Tod moTOv ay- Spbs wadw 7d akdbaproy THs amiorou yuvaikés, Chrys. The ayérns thus referred to has of course no per- sonal reference: the husband was not in himself sanctified, but by being closely united to one who was a member of the Church and of the company of the &y101, was regarded as in a quasi-Christian light; the con- jugal bond through the believing VEL '¥3) ta. 119 yuvaixi, Kal yylacTar yur) 7) amuctos & TO > “a > \ »¥ ‘ , c A > , “2 adeAPO* Evel dpa TA TEKVA Dav akdOaprda eat, 14. T@ adedgg] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating uncial authority: Rec., r¢@ avdpl, with nearly all the Vv. wife had the character of Christian matrimony. Sorightly Calv., ‘nihil prodest hee sanctificatio conjugi infideli: tantum eo valet, ne ejus copula fidelis inquinetur, et pro- fanetur ipsum matrimonium:’ in a word, matrimony was still ‘holy matrimony.’ év TH yuvark(}) ‘in the wife:’ she was the substratum or basis of the sanc- tifying; see Winer, Gr. 48. 2. a, and comp. notes on Gal. i. 24. So &v T@ adeAp@ in the next clause. The true force of the preposition thus remains ; the action being regarded as taking place, not ‘by means of,’ but, so to speak, in the causal sphere of the person or thing with which this preposition is connected : see the good collection of exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 431. 1. 3. Such distinctions may seem finely drawn, but they are real, and in some cases (e.g. év Xpiorg@, ev Kupiy, al.) of distinct exegetical importance: see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and on Eph. m. Gi" iv... étmrel dpa K.T-A.] ‘since it would then follow that your children are unclean,’ ‘alioguin filii vestri immundi essent,’ Vulg.: proof of what was stated, by showing what would clearly follow if the non-Christian parent had not been regarded as thus 7yacuévos. On the use of émel, see notes on ch. vy. 10, and on the use and meaning of &pa (‘sig- nificatio levioris cujusdam ratio- cinationis, que indicat rebus ita comparatis aliquid ita aut esse aut fieri,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 167), The Memph., however, is in favour of the text. Donalds. Gr. § 548. 4, and notes on Gal. v. 11. What is obviously assumed is that the children of Christians generally are &y:a,—not in a personal sense, but as standing in the closest relation to those who, by profession, are Gyo. Even if born only of one Christian parent the child was still the child of a Christian, and as such, owing to the closeness of the union between parent and child, had, so to speak, a ayiétns shed upon it from its closeness of union with what was Christian: comp. Hooker, ccl. Pol. vy. 60.6. The suéy has thus a perfectly general reference, viz. to the Christian hearers or readers of the Epistle, and includes all cases in which a child could claim a Christian parent or parents. The different grounds on which such children could be accounted éya are well stated by Edwards in loc. No inference can possibly be drawn from the passage as to infant bap- tism. Though children are spoken of as Gy.a in the sense, and from the circumstances, already specified, yet that which they are vce: (comp. Eph. ii. 3) remains wholly unaffected and unchanged: the need for Chris- tian baptism remains entirely the same; see Miiller, Doctrine of Sin, Vol. mu. p. 305 (Transl.), and Hof- mann, Schriftbeweis, Part I. p. 454, and the clear note in his Comment- ary (in loc.). viv S€)] ‘ but as it is,’ the viv having its logical rather than its temporal meaning ; see notes on ch. v. II. 120 TIPO KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH. nn x, g¢ / oa) > ey 8. 4 15 vov d€ dy €otw. el O€ 6 dmaTos xwpilerai, ywpt- Céc0m* od Sedovhorar 6 adepds 7} 7 adeAdr) ev “A , > \ > , 4 ec al c / Tos ToLovTOLS, Ev SE Eipyvn KeK\yKEY Huds 6 Oeds. 15. meas} So Rec., Lachm., Treg., and Rev. (with marg.), on slightly preponderating authority: Tisch., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), suas. It also seems more probable that tuas was acorrection for 7mas, than con- versely. 15. xwpitécbw] ‘let him de- part ;’ permissive imperative ; there need be no hindrance on the part of the Christian wife; comp. ch. xiv. 38, and see Winer, Gr. § 43. I, Kiihner, Gr. § 397.2. Having given direction in the case of the &moros desiring to remain with his Christian wife (ver. 13), the Apostle now deals with the case of his leaving her. In such a case, he says, the Christian wife, and, in the converse case, the Christian husband, are neither of them bound, in regard of the de- serting husband or wife, as they would each have been, if the one so deserting had been a Christian ; ovr exer avaynny 6 motds ) moth ev Tos amiorols ToLavTHY, Oia av’T@ émi- Keita em) Tov micTev, Photius. od ScS0vAwrTat ev Tots ToOLOvToLS] ‘is not under bondage in such cir- cumstances ;’ appy. a studiously strong word (contrast the lighter déderat ver. 39) to enhance indirectly the inferential sanction of the Apostle to the regarding of the marriage as dissolved. The inter- pretation of these words has been the subject of much controversy. That they imply that wilful de- sertion on the part of the unbelieving husband or wife is to be regarded as having set the believing wife or husband free, cannot reasonably be doubted; comp. Hofmann in loc. Whether one so set free is to be con- sidered as at liberty to marry again (a Christian, see ver. 39) is more open to question. Nothing certainly is expressly said (Neand.), but the tenor of the words (0d ded0vAwrat k.T.A.) seems in favour of the liberty; see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1081, Vol. v. p. 30 (ed. 2), Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part. 11. § 19, p. 38 (Transl.). Such too is the ruling of the canon law: see the authorities cited by Wordsworth in loc. The only real difficulty is whether such an inter- pretation can be considered con- sistent with our Lord’s declaration, Matth. v. 32, xix. 9. The ordinary view seems reasonable; viz. that our Lord’s words must be under- stood as referring, by the very nature of the case and of the context, to those, and such as those, to whom the words were addressed, and that, in regard of such cases as those now under consideration, nothing further could be deduced from our Lord’s command than this—that the be- lieving husband or wife was not at liberty to depart. If deserted by the unbelieving, then fresh con- siderations arose. év eipryvn] ‘tm peace;’ not ‘in pacem,’ Clarom., but, with the usual and proper force of the preposition, ‘in a sphere of, and with the accom- paniments of, peace:’ peace was the moral element in which the KAjjots took place; see Winer, Gr. § 50. 5, and notes on Eph. iv. 4; comp. I Thess. iv. 7. The clause is VIL? ‘15; 16, £7: 121 Tl yap oldas, yivat, ei Tov avdpa cdces ; 7) Tioldas, 16 avep, & THY yuvatka oooes; Ei pa) exdotw ws 17 thus to be connected, not directly with the xwp:(éo@w (Chrys., De W.), —for the departing might have been perfectly peaceable,—but with that which precedes: it presents under a slightly different aspect (5¢) the same general sentiment; Christi- anity involves no elements of bond- age; it is in peace that we have received our Christian calling from God. The Christian wife, then, need feel no peace-disturbing scruples about the matter, ei6 &moros xwp- i€erat, xwpi(éoOw: see Hofm. in loc., who has well worked out the thought- connexion of this somewhat difficult verse. 16. tl yap olSag x.7.A.] ‘ For what knowest thou, O wife, as to whether thou wilt save thy husband:’ confirmation of the reasonableness of the foregoing direction, «i de 6 ‘let the depart, and feel no anxious scruples thereon, for what knowest thou about the matter, whether, if thou strive to keep him, thou wilt convert him?’ There are here two widely different views of the connexion of thought of this verse with the fore- going : (a) that of the earlier exposi- tors (Chrys., al.), according to which the present clause is to be referred to the wh adiérw of ver. 12 and 13, and ver. 15 regarded as parentheti- cal; (b) the connexion indicated above, and adopted by the majority of modern interpreters. If (a) be adopted, then ei will in effect be ‘ whether—not;’ and the verse will contain an argument against separ- ation founded on the possibility of the morby pépos converting the émorov, To this there is no gram- matical objection, as the particle &moros 4.7.0.3 &mioros ei, which in itself only involves the enquiry ‘de aliqué re, utrum sit an non sit’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p- 508), may be rightly rendered with an associated negative, if the same is plainly implied by the contewt ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 587. 21, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 65. 1. 8. No other example, however, has been cited from the N. T. The real objection to (a) is founded on the sequence of the sentences, which appears regular and unbroken, confirmatory reasons here following each statement in a natural and logical order, and ap- parently precluding the assumption of any parenthesis. The main thought is od Sed0vAwra, and this is confirmed by the present verse and limited by that which follows. We maintain therefore with some confi- dence (b), and connect the yap with the principal statement in the fore- going verse. In the ques- tion rf oidas, Meyer (citing Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 1. p. 823) regards the ri as adverbial, and not as an object-accusative. This seems very doubtful in a context such as the present, where the transitive verb seems naturally to need its supple- mental accus.: contrast the exx. cited by Ellendt im loc. That the sentence becomes in point of fact equivalent to ‘ How knowest thou, &c,’ may be conceded, but the ordinary regimen remains. 17. El pr éxdore x.7.A.] ‘ Save only as the Lord distributed to each:’ limitation of the principal foregoing thought, viz. that there was no (vyov SovAelas in the case of the unbelieving husband (or wife) deliberately departing. The Apostle, by way of salutary caution, adds 122 MPO KOPINOIOYS ITPOTH. BJ , c , 4 ec , c /, enepirey O Kupios, exactov ws Kékd\nKev 0 Geos, OUTWS TeEpiTaTEiTH. Kal OUTwS ev Tals EKKAyoLaLS 18 mdcas Svatacoopa. Tlepuretpnpévos Ts 17. euépicev] So Rec., Lachm., on apparently preponderating external authority: Tisch., Treg. (with marg.), Rev., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), MEWwepiKer. Internal arguments are also in favour of the text ; a conform- ation of the aorist to the following perfect is more likely (the significance of the tense in each case not being perceived) than a change from the less usual form peuépixey to the more familiar euépicer. The order Kipios—Oebds (Rec., @eds—Kupuos) is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority. that though, under the special cir- cumstances, there was no actual dovAeia, yet that maintenance of the position which has been assigned to each one by the Lord is ever to be regarded as the normal Christian principle. Various other interpreta- tions have been given of this some- what difficult clause, but they will all be found either to infringe on the true exceptive force of ef uh (see notes on Gal. 1. 7), or to obscure the prominence of the od Sed0vAwra, which (as has been already ob- served) is the main thought of the foregoing verse. In both this and the following clause the em- phasis falls on the exaoros (hence the slight inversion of order, éxdoT» ws rather than @s éxdoTw ; comp. ch. iii. 5, Rom. xii. 3); each individual had his own outward pépos (cireum- stances of earthly life) assigned to him by the Lord [not the First, but the Second Person of the blessed Trinity; see notes on 1 Thess. ili. 12], and each has his own special KAjots from God. KéKAnkev] ‘has called:’ with reference to the enduring nature of the initial act of grace, the perfect always indicating ‘actionem plane preteritam, que aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est, aut per effectus suos durat,’ Poppo, Progr. de emend. Matth. Gramm. p. 6. Inthe first clause the euéepicev simply refers to the past, and is silent as to the present; see notes on Gal. v.24. On the regular re- ference of the kAjois to God the Father, see notes on Gal. 1.6. ottTws Tepitratetta] ‘so let him walk;’ not merely, ‘so let him remain’ [existat], Mth., but ‘let such be his course,’ ‘ ita ambulet,’ Vulg., ‘sva gaggai, Goth.,—the verb mepirareiy in passages of this kind always referring to a man’s course of life in its continuous, practical, and outward manifestations: see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 679, and notes on Phil. iii. 18, and on I Thess. iv. 12. Kal oUTwS x.t-A.] ‘And so do I ordain im all the Churches :’ not only Sexvis 7d Tov TaparyyéAuatos avarykaiov (Theo- dorus), but with a tone alike of apostolic authority and of concilia- tory exhortation ; ‘doctrina univer- salis: in qu& etiam Corinthii possunt acquiescere,’ Beng.; comp., Cicum. wm loc. 18. Mepiretpnpméevos Tis EKA On] ‘ Was any man called being circum- cised?’ scil. being circumcised at the time he received his calling to Christianity. Application of the general rule just given to two cases VII. 18, 109. 123 EAH Oy ; ur) ETaTIATOw* ev axpoBvotia KékdynTal TUS ; pr Tepiteuver Ow. 7) TEpLTopr) OVSEY oT, Kal 19 e > , > , > > ‘\ , > “A n axpoBvotia ovdév eoTw, aA THpHoLs evTodv 18. xéxAnral tis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hori, on authority, very greatly preponderating for the perfect, and very clearly for the order of the words: Rec., tis €xA4On. of considerable practical importance. Some commentators (De Wette, Meyer, al.) adopt here and ver. 27 a non-interrogative punctuation, the aor. indicative being regarded as used hypothetically—‘ suppose any one was called, &c.’; ‘si cireum- cisus aliquis vocatus sit,’ Syr., sim. ®th., and so appy. Copt., Goth.: comp. James ii. 19, and see Winer, Gr. §§ 25.1, 60.4. This is gram- matically admissible (see Kiihner, Gr. § 391. I, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 54. I. 1.) but is here somewhat forced, especially as there are no associated particles (e.g. cat 5h) or that promi- nence of the verb (see exx. in Kiihner) which might seem to suggest this hypothetical sense. We therefore, with Lachm. and most modern editors, adopt the interroga- tive. B27 etrrotrdabw] ‘ let him not make himself uncircum- cised,’ ‘non adducat preputium,’ Vulg.; with reference to a revolting practice, by surgical means (see Celsus, de Med. vu. 25), of superin- ducing a state that in appearance might be that of axpoBvoria: see, if necessary, the reff. in Winer, Real- Worterb. Art. ‘ Beschneidung,’ Vol. I. p. 160 (ed. 3), Wetst. i loc., and the instances alluded to in Light- foot, Hor. Hebr. (in loc.) Vol. 1. p. 899 (Lond. 1686). The apostates and viol -mapdvouo: mentioned in 1 Mace. i. 11 sq. érolnoay éavtois axpo- Bvotias Kal aréornoay amd diabhnns aylas (ver. 15); on which passage see the notes and reff. of Grimm (Handb. zu den Apocryphen, Part ut. p- 14), and comp. Joseph. Antigq. xm. 5.1. The act was either to avoid the risk of being scoffed at (‘Judwi curti,’ Hor.), if seen naked (comp. Joseph. l.c.), or to signify disavowal of the rdrpios Opnoxela (Joseph.), and adoption of the habits and principles of heathenism. év dkpo- Bvorta «.7.A.] ‘Has anyone been called in uncircumeision;’ scil. in the state of uncircumcision, Rom. iv. 10. The perfect serves slightly to mark the calling, not simply as having taken place, but as continu- ing in its effects: such a one was to give no heed to Judaizing teachers ; comp. Gal. vi. 12. 19. ovSév éortry] is nothing, 7.e. ‘is of no consequence,’ in regard of the spiritual aspects of the question now under consideration ; if cireum- cised, the man was no better; if un- circumcised, he was no worse; comp. ch. viii. 8. As Calvin rightly observes, ‘ utrumque in s#quo ponit, ne alterius odio alterum stulte appe- tatur.’ Circumcision was now a ‘sacramentum mortuum’ (Estius) ; primarily and generally a sign of dedication to God (see Herzog, Real- Encycl. Vol. 1. p. 109), and to the Jew, of entering into special rela- tions with Him (Gen. xvii. 10; see Kurtz, Old Cov., Vol. 1. § 58, p. 236 sq., Transl.), it lost all its signific- ance when the better covenant was vouchsafed, and the good things were come of which it was one of the symbols and foreshadowings (comp, 124 IIPOZ KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH. 20 Ocod. Exaotos &v TH KAjoe H eKhHOn, év TadTn 21 peveTo. Kat Ovvaca. ehevlepos Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6); év yap Xpirg ‘Incov ovte mepitrouh ti isxter ove akpoBvotla, GAAG mlotis BY ayamns evepyounevn, Gal. v.6; see Rom. ii, 25 sq. GAAG THPNHOLS k.T.A. ‘ but the keeping of the com- mandments of God,’ scil. verily is something ; ‘ est aliquid, confert ad justitiam et salutem,’ Estius : comp. ch. iii. 7. Circumcision was an evToAy, but not one of universal obligation : ‘quum hoe unum esset ex mandatis, quamdiu ceremoniis legalibus devincta fuit Ecclesia, videmus pro confesso sumi, adven- tu Christi abolitam fuisse circum- cisionem,’ Caly. 20. év Tq x-7.A.] ‘ Let each one, in the calling wherewith he was called:’ reitera- tion, without any connecting par- ticles, and so more emphatic, of the rule given above, in ver. 17, and implied throughout the paragraph. The «Ajots must thus be taken, with its usual and theological reference (as KéxAnney 6 Oeds, ver. 17), as marking the gracious agency, within the scope and ambit of which each one was to remain. The dative 7 does not involve a silent repetition of the preposition (Matth. xxiv. 50, Acts. xiii. 39, al.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 7. b.), but is simply instru- mental, as in 2 Tim. i. 9, xaAécayros KAnoe: ayia; each one was not sim- ply called, but called in conformity with a merciful and divinely ordered procedure; comp. Jackson on the Creed, Book xm. 7. The rendering ‘ vi- vendi ratio’ (Calv.), or ‘status, in quo aliquem yocatio offendit’ (Grimm), is lexically doubtful, and certainly = 2 €xaorTos KAN oeEL Aovdos €xAHOns 3 pH) wou pedrérw: add’ et yevérbor, waddov ypnoa.. inconsistent with the N.T. usage of the word: see Cremer, Worterb. p- 333, and Edwards in loc. év TatvTH peveTa) ‘in this let him remain ;’ with distinct emphasis: he was not to withdraw from the providential disposition of God as involved and implied in the «is ti miotiw mpocaywyh (Theoph.) vouch- safed to him. For exx. of this em- phatic use of the demonstrative, see Winer, Gr. §23.43; comp. ver. 24, ch. vi. 4. 21. AotdAosg exArOns; «x.T.A.] ‘Wast thou called, being a bond- servant ? let it not be a care to thee ;’ ‘do not let the fact of being a bond- servant be a source of spiritual trouble to thee,’—7r7js 5ovAcias being in effect latent: see Winer, Gr. § 64. 1.b. There might be much in the state of the slave that might seem to preclude the full realization of Christian blessings : such anxieties, however, were to be cast aside; He who had vouchsafed to take the form of a dovAos had conferred the true freedom (ver. 22). GAN’ ei kai Stvacar k.7.A.] ‘but if thou even canst become free.’ It seems hardly possible to doubt that in these words the aAAa@ has reference to the preceding negation, and that the xa throws its emphasis on the dvvacat x.T.A. and enhances the statement: see Hermann, Viger, No. 307, and the notes on Phil. ii. 17. Whether the rendering be ‘also,’ (Evans), or, much more appro- priately, ‘even,’ really matters but little, provided the true connexion be maintained. In the ordinary rendering ‘if thou canst even be- VII. 20, 21,. 22. 125 6 yap ev Kupiv «hyfeis Soddos dzedevOepos Kupiov 22 come free’ (‘sed si potes etiam liber fieri,’ Beza), or, dropping the xa al- together, ‘if thou canst become free’ (Copt., al.), the force of the kal be- comes, directly or indirectly, trans- ferred to éAev@epos yevéoOat, and thereby 7H éAcvéepia suggested as the more natural supplement to xpioa. For such a practical trajection, how- ever, of «al, no satisfactory example has been adduced. We seem bound therefore to adopt the natural con- nexion: so Syr., Arm., (Goth. ‘al- though ;’ comp. Vulg.] and, very clearly, Phot. (Cram. Cat.) (€i nat Sivacat did tTios orovdijs Kal émpmed- elas éAevOepos yevéoOa), and the Greek expositors (in loc.) generally. The real difficulty, however, is in the next clause. waAdov xpioat]} ‘use it rather.’ But what? 7H édevdepla or TH Sovdcia? The former of these seems at first sight more natural: that the Apostle should sanction the slave’s availing himself of a fairly offered oppor- tunity is only what we might naturally expect; ‘to thee so it would be better,’ Arm. Christianity points upward. Moreover the preced- ing words éAev’Oepos yevéoOar seem to suggest the synonymous substantive, and xpjcat, again, is more applic- able to the adoption of a new state of things than the maintenance of an old state. These two objections, however, seem to be insuperable: (a) that the supplement of 77 éAcvé- epla is logically inconsistent with the explanation already given of the preceding clause, and leaves the ‘even’ unintelligible; (b) that such a supplement is clearly not in har- mony with the general tenor of the whole passage, which indisputably is év @ éxAnOn, ev trolTw ueverw (ver. 24). We therefore adopt the latter supplement, 77 SovAeia, and see in it a Christian sentiment of a higher strain than that presented by the first aspect of the words. Though the Apostle does not, even in the most indirect way, forbid the legitimate use of any providentially offered opportunity, he makes every- thing else subordinate to the great cardinal thought, that in Christ all callings, all conditions, all distince- tions, are practically obliterated (Gal. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 13),—and the more so, as the time was now ‘shortened ’ (ver. 29), and far other thoughts were now in all true hearts than the amelioration of a transitory temporal condition. Thus Syr. (‘elige tibi ut servias ; translators intercalate ‘ potius quam before ‘ut,’ but appy. without any- thing to justify it), the Greek exposi- tors, and most modern writers, ex- cept Hofmann, who, though arguing with much force and ingenuity, fails to break down the reasoning founded on the plain grammatical considera- tion above alluded to. The dp in the next verse then follows natur- ally; elra kal thy aitiay éemdyet, Chrys. 22. 6 yap év Kuplw x-7.A.] ‘ For he that hath been called in the Lord being a bond-servant is a freed- man of the Lord;’ confirmatory grounds for the foregoing directions ; the Christian bond-servant may well remain contented with his position, for he is a freedman whose freedom Christ has purchased, and is dvtws eAetGepos; compare John viii. 36. The gen. Kuplov, as Meyer rightly remarks, is not dependent on aweAevOepos as the original manu- mitting owner, but as the (present) 126 TIPO KOPINOIOYS ITPOTH. €otiv: opoiws 6 édevMepos Kdnfeis Sovdrds eotw 23 Xpiorov. tyns yyopdaOynte: pH yiveobe Soddon 24 dvOpadrwv. Exactos & @ €xdnjOn, ddedpol, év TovTH 22. dpuolws] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds kal. possessor. The former servitude was not to the Lord, but to sin (Rom. vi. 20, 500A01 re TH}s Guaptias) : from this Christ set us free; KaGd exeidey eAevOepooas, brd Thy oikelay Hryayer Bacidrclay, Photius (Cramer, Cat.). On the significant év Kupig, see notes on Eph. iv. I. Spots & €XedOepos K.T.A.] ‘in like manner the free-man, when called, is a bond-servant of Christ:’ con- verse statement; the one who has external freedom, when made a Christian, becomes the d5ovAos of a redeeming Lord, and is sometimes permitted to bear the marks of His holy ownership: see Gal. vi. 17, and notes 7 loc. The connexion ‘the bond-servant who is called’... ‘he that is called being free’ (Alf.) does not seem to be correct. In the first member, 6 év Kupig KAn@els is the subject, and SodAo0s in defining apposition: in the second member the changed position of the partici- ple seems to make it more natural to regard 6 eAevdepos as the subject, in antithesis with the dotAos that follows, and kAn@eis the defining or circumstantial participle; compare Donalds. Gr. § 442. 23. TLS AyopdcOnte}] ‘ Ve were bought for a price ;’ scil. by Christ, at the cost of His most pre- cious blood (1 Pet. i. 19); see notes and reff. on ch. vii. 20, where the nature of the A’tpoy and the gram- matical character of the genitive are both discussed. The exact reference of the next clause, pa yiveoe x.7.X., has been very differ- ently explained. It can hardly bea mere general counsel (Chrys., Theod., al.), as both the verse which pre- cedes and the verse which follows have a special reference to the sub- ject under consideration, viz. the patient continuance in the state or calling in which each one, by God’s providence, was placed. The words seem more naturally to point to ad- visers and teachers who (under ir- cumstances not known to us) gave a very different counsel to that of the Apostle. They to whom the words were addressed were Christ’s servants: it was to Him alone, and to His Spirit as vouchsafed to His Apostles and true teachers, that they were to look for guidance and direction. There was only too much of this kind of bondage to men in the Corinthian Church; compare Hofmann in loc., whose own inter- pretation, however, ‘do not spend your lives in a dependence on men in which your circumstances have not placed you,’ is too vague for the connexion. 24. €xaoTos év G EkANON k-T.A.] ‘Let each man, brethren, in that state wherein he was called, therein abide.’ Reiterated counsel, clos- ing the digression ver. 17, and re- peating the rule of ver. 20 with still higher emphasis and enhancement (xapa @eg); TodTo Kal mpooluoy kat émiAoyov THS mapawéoews TEOELKEY, VIL 24, 24,.'29. 127 , ‘ a peveTwo Tapa Oew. As to virgins, it is better that they Tlepi S€ trav tapbévwr, emitayiy 25 should in a , > ¥ , + 9 po more tie taters Kupiov otk exo, yrounv dé didope the Lord; and so of widows. e > , c ‘ - , ws Aenuevos vd Kupiov muortds 24. mapa @eg] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., rapa rG Ocg. Theod. mapa Ocg] ‘with God,’ ‘apud Deum ;’ dependent on the preceding wevérw, and deriving from it its present quasi-local re- ference: Td 5¢ rapa OcG mpoceOyker, tva wh mdAw Tod Ocod adicraucba, Theoph. The words may mean before God,’ i.e. from the point of view of God’s judgment (Winer, Gr. § 48. d.); comp. ch. iii. 19, Gal. iii. 11, al., and see notes in locc. The local meaning, however, of closeness to (Donalds. Cratyl. § 177) seems here better to suit the con- text, and to harmonize with the quasi-local idea which is introduced by the verb. Under either aspect the clause conditions, and gives a new tone and force to the command. It thus suitably closes the period and the digression, and gives, as it were in epitome, the true rationale of all the foregoing advice: it is only from the closer walk with God, and fuller realization of His presence, that all positions and relations of life can rightfully be maintained. On this text, see a valuable sermon by Bp. Sanderson, ad Pop. Iv. p. 203 sqq. (Lond. 1689). 25-40. Rules relative to virgins and the fathers of such, and to re- marriage. 25. Mlepi 8 trav tmap8évev] ‘Now as concerning virgins :’ transition, by means of the usual 8 peraBatixdy, to the subject of virgins, about which questions had been addressed to him by members of the Corinthian Church; 65¢ kal rdte: mpoBaivwy ‘Kal rijs mapbevias uynuoveter Aourdy, Chrys. The term rap@évo: is under- stood by Theodorus among earlier, and by Bengel and others among later, expositors, to refer to both sexes ; comp. Rey. xiv. 4, in which case, however, the use (adjectival and predicative) is clearly different from the present. Such an interpre- tation may perhaps just be lexically tenable (see the exx. in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. vi. p. 572, ed. Hase and Dind.), and may, at first sight, seem to derive some support from ver. 26, but is clearly out of harmony with ver. 28 and 34, in which the context seems to preclude the wider reference. youn &(Sopr) ‘I give my opinion or advice,’ ‘consilium do,’ Vulg., Clar.; ‘ragin giba,’ Goth., cupBovahy mporpepw, Theod.; see 2 Cor. viii. 10, and comp. notes on Philem. 14. It seems scarcely to amount here to ‘judgment’ (Auth., Rev.), but, in accordance with the tenor of the whole passage, to point to the ‘opinion’ which the Apostle had formed on the whole difficult sub- ject (voul(w caddy elva:, Chrys.), and which now, not so much in his office as their Apostle, as in his general position as afidmioros eis 7d mapaveiv (Phot.), he states as his counsel or advice: note the voul(w with which the next verse begins. mates elvat] ‘to be faithful,’ ie. 128 IIPOS KOPINGIOY2 TIPOTH. > a 26 eva. Nopilw ovv tovto Kadov vmdpyew Sua THY évertacav avayKny, oTt Kadov avOpdmw Td ovTwS ‘trustworthy’ (comp. 1 Tim. i. 15 and notes in loc.), ‘cui fides merito sit habenda,’ Beza; one whose words and advice could fully be relied on: he*was an atidxpews stuBovdros (Theod.), pvorinda kéwos moreverat (Theoph.); see ver. 40. It was through the mercy of the Lord that he was enabled thus faithfully to give the mind, though not the em- rayhv, of his Master. The other renderings that have been adopted, e.g. ‘true’ (Riick., al.), or ‘ believ- ing’ (Hofm.), do not appear equally well to bring out the claim that the Apostle here puts forward for being attended to, viz. that by the mercy of God he was one whose words deserved attention. 26. voptto odv] ‘I consider therefore ;’ the verb expressing the formulated opinion, and the ody, with its collective force (‘ad ea, que antea revera posita sunt, lectorem revocat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 717), basing the expression of that opinion on the latter portion of the preceding verse. The accurate reader will observe in such pas- sages as the present the fine but still perceptible distinction between this use of the particle and that of the more argumentative dpa. If épa had been used, the present clause would have been more dis- tinctly illative than would be in harmony with the general nature of the context. The collectiwe use of otvy just preserves the mean be- tween resumption and direct argu- ment; see, however, notes on Gal. iii. 5. On the two uses of ody (the reflexive and collective, see Klotz, Devar. 1. c., and comp. notes on Phil. ii. 1. TOUTO KaAOV iadpxeiv «.7.A.] ‘ that this is good by reason of the present necessity ;’ the rovro pointing forward, and placed prominently in the clause to enhance attention and prepare for the subsequent words ér: «k.7.A., which define and explain it ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 23.5, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 7. 3. What the Apostle ad- vised was KaAds: it was good; not merely in itself, but with due regard to the judgment of all right-minded persons; see notes on ch. v. 6. What especially made it good at the present time was the avdycn,— the precursory woes and calamities associated with the Lord’s coming, of which He had distinctly spoken (Matth. xxiv. 8 sq.), and which even now were to be seen and felt every- where. On the meaning of eveards, and its reference to something that had already commenced, see notes on Gal. i. 4, and also on 2 Thess. 12 Stu. Kadov avOpéme «.7.A.] ‘ that it is good, I say, fora man thus to be,’ scil. ‘ to be as he is,’ to remain in the state in which he finds himself,—an illus- tration of which follows in the succeeding verse. The general prin- ciple being thus enunciated, or rather reiterated, the application to virgins (about whom questions had appa- rently more particularly been asked) is easy and natural. It is thus not necessary to stretch the meaning of avOpérw as itself ‘utriusque sexus’ (Beng.): what is KaAdv avOpdémy is certainly so in the case of the map0evos. The construction is slightly irregular, but the mean- ing perfectly clear. The Apostle apparently feeling (while dictating) that the preceding infinitival clause, VII. 26, 27, 28. 129 elvar. SéSerar yuvarki; py jr AN0ow' py Gyre yuvaira. Avoar amd yuvaikds; hé- 27 2s €av dé Kal yapyons, ody Huaptess Kal eav yyyn 28 28. yauhons) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. & Hort, on preponderant authority: Rec., Rev., yiuns. The union of BN, and the likelihood of a correction to harmonize with the subsequent yyun seem to authorize this judgment. The article before wap@évos is doubtful, but appy. rightly retained in the text. if continued regularly by means of an appositional infinitive (Hofm.) or otherwise (comp. Meyer, 87: &- Opwros ottws ear), might have left the meaning obscure, drops the infinitive and recommences with the more direct drt kaddv k.7.A.: or, to speak more technically, he begins with one of the three forms of the ‘ objective’ or ‘exponential’ sen- tence, and, without finishing the sen- tence, passes over to another ; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 584. In classical Greek two clauses, the one with 67: the other with the infin., are some- times found in dependence on the same verb (see Kriiger, Spracil. § 59. 2. 10): here, however, there is only one clause in two forms. To avoid the difficulty some expositors (De W., al., comp. Vulg.) take dr: in its causal sense, but fall into the greater difficulty of tautology. The article before the ofrws civa, though not capable of being ex- pressed in translation, adds force and distinctness; see Winer, Gr. § 44.2. obs. It calls attention to the general principle on which the Apostle frames his answers to the questions put to him. 27. 8€8ecar yuvarkl} ‘ Art thou bound to a wife?’ Explanation, by means of an interrogative clause, of the true tenor and intention of the foregoing counsel. The Apostle’s advice was to be taken with due regard to existing relations; ém- relver kal avinow, Orig. (Cram. Cat.). Both words have been pressed by interpreters; 5é5eca:, according to Theophyl., al., being regarded as marking the impeding character of matriage (kdkwow eémipeper 6 yduos, Theoph., comp. Orig.), and yuvaixi, as including the case of a betrothed virgin-daughter (Hofm.). Neither view seems contextually supported. The verb simply marks the marriage- bond (see Rom. vii. 2,7¢ (Gyre avipl dederac vdu~), and the substantive, as the subsequent Av’cw seems to indicate, a married rather than an espoused woman. The dative yuvaini is the ordinary dative of juxtaposi- tion or proximity (Donaldson, Gr. § 456), replaced sometimes in this formula by mpds with the accus., €.g. mpos &vdpa Sedeuevny, Iambl. Vit. Pythag. u. 56. A€Avoat amd yuvatkds] ‘standest thow free from a wife?’ not ‘hast thou been separated by death or desertion ?’ but, more inclusively, ‘art thou free from the matrimonial bond?’ ‘denotat non solum eum qui uxori desiit esse alligatus, sed etiam eum qui nunquam alligatus fuit,’ Beng. ; comp. Grimm, Lez. s. vy. Atw. In each clause the perfect has its full and proper force; see notes on Eph. ty / 28. éav & kal yaprions) ‘ But if it be that thow shalt have married ;’ the xa‘, as usual in such collocations, throwing emphasis on K 130 IPOS KOPINOGIOY> LPT, % tmapbevos, ovx nuaptev: Odipw S€ TH capkl Y c lal > ‘ A. Ee lal / 29 e€ovow ot ToLovToL, eyw d€ tuav eidopar. Tovto , dé dnt, adeAdot, 6 Kaipos ovvertadpevos eaTiv, Td 29. 6 katpds] Elz. prefixes $71, but with clearly insufficient authority. Elz. also (with Rec.) adopts the order 7 Aoumédy eorw, but on still less authority; Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, éotly, 7d Aoundy, but with differences of punctuation; see notes below. the verb, and bringing the alterna- tive into prominence. The student will find a full discussion on the uses of this particle in notes on Phil. iv. 12. otx HwaprTes | ‘ thou didst not sin in that act,’ or, as the sequence of English tenses requires us to translate, ‘ thow hast not sinned. In all such uses of the aorist this one principle has to be remembered,— that the tense per se marks an event that belongs to the past, but is silent as to whether it does or does not extend to the pre- sent. This latter point must in all cases be settled by the context, and the translation modified accordingly ; see notes on Gal. v.24,and on 1 Thess. ii. 16, and the sensible remarks of A. Buttman, Gramm. N. T. p. 172. On the aorist in the apodosis after éay with the subj., see Winer, Gr. § 41. 20: Tq capkt] ‘ in the flesh,’ 2. e. in bodily circumstances and relations; ‘dicit multas molestias conjugio annexas esse... Caro igitur hic pro homine externo capi- tur,’ Calv. The order of the words seems to indicate that the (inter- calated) dative does not depend directly on the verb, but on the general statement (@AlWiw Eefovotr), its use being to specify the sphere, as it were, in which the action takes place; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 20, my matdia yiveoOe Tais pdpsoty, and see notes o1 Gal. i.22. This form of dative is of frequent occurrence in the N. T., and is quite in harmony with the essential idea of the case; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, and comp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 288 Sq. éy® 5 tyav pelSopnar] ‘but I spare you,’ the ey just mark- ing the Apostolic authority of the writer, and so enhancing the wise counsel of the foregoing verses. The Apostle spares them, not in laying upon them no yoke of celibacy even when the very avdy«n of the times might seem to justify it (see Wordsworth im loc.), but in ad- vising a single life in such a period of trial. The present deiSoua: does not seem specially to mark the time then passing (‘I am sparing you,’ Alf.), still less to have any optative tinge (‘ cupio infirmitati vestre con- sultum,’ Beza; see contra, Winer, Gr. § 41. 2. obs.), but rather simply to state the actual and deliberate result; I have ‘well weighed this matter, and, in so speaking, spare you;’ comp. Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 6. 29. Totro S€ dnp] ‘ Now this I say ;’ the transitional 5€ (see notes on Gal. i. 11, iii. 8) introducing fresh considerations, or, rather, a new aspect of the subject, designed to add force to the advice previously given: not only were the days full of trial (ver. 26), but the time was shortened; éeyyis ouvréAcia Tov mapdvt os ai@vos, Theod.; mpos TG TéAEt 6 kdomos, Sever.; Hyyucevy 7 Baotrela Tov Xpicrov, Theoph. The use here of pnut rather than of the more usual VII. ‘29, 30: 131 Nourdv iva Kal of ExovTES yuvaiKas ws fr) EXOVTES Gow, Kat ot Kd\alovres WS py KAaiovTes, Kal ol 30 xalpovTes Gs pr) XalpovTes, Kal ot ayopalovTes ws Adyw (rodro Be Aéya, ch. vii. 6, Gal. iii. 17, Col. ii. 4, al.) seems to mark, as in ch. xv. 50, the gravity and importance of the statement: it was not intended so much to explain (Beng., compare Theodorus), as to confirm and to enhance, the fore- going counsel. & Kkatpds cvveotadkpwévos éorty] ‘the time is shortened ;’ the lexical usage of the verb ovoréAAew (‘ contrahere,’ ‘ co- arctare,’ Grimm, Lez. s. v.) clearly precluding any other meaning, espe- cially when thus in connexion with xaipés. The solemn statement is re- ferred by some expositors (Theod. 1, Estius, Caly., al.) to the shortness and transitory nature of mortal life ; ‘a brevitate humane vite ducit argumentum,’ Caly. This is pos- sible; the solemn form, however, of the Apostle’s words, and the general tenor of ver. 31, seem almost cer- tainly to refer to the longed-for mapovola of the Lord; see above. On the nature of this expectation on the part of St Paul and the Apostles, see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 15, 1 Tim. Vi. 14. Td Aoutrdyv tva K.T.A. |] ‘in order that, henceforth, they also that have wives should be as if they had them not;’ the «al slightly emphasizing the case of those speci- ally under consideration, and the rd Aoiwrdvy marking by its prominence the changed circumstances of the new dispensation in all its future aspects, and echoing the sentiment of the foregoing clause,—-‘ that, for the future,—a future that may be of no long duration,’ &c.; ypnyopeire oty bri od ofdare «.7.A., Matth. xxv. 42. The ‘va (see a similar position of the particle, Gal. ii. 10) has its proper force : the time was shortened that so, in the order of God’s provi- dential government of the world (comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 6), the whole relations of the future might be different from those of the past: d:a Thy Tov Kaipod Bpax’rntra mavra Tae ev omovd) Tisw brdpxovtTa ws ovK byTa, onolv, dpelrouey ayetcOut, Cicum. (Cram.). Most of the early Versions (Syr., Copt. (ed. De La G.], Arm.: contra Vulg., Clarom., ‘ reliquum est ut,’) and the Greek expositors con- nect 7d Aowdy with the foregoing clause: so Treg., De Wette, Alf., Wordsw., al. This connexion, how- ever, is contrary to the usual position of 7d Aordy in St Paul’s Epp. (Phil. iii. I, iv. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 1, Thess. iii. 1; comp. Eph. vi. 10), and seriously dilutes the force of the solemn 6 Katpds guverTaAduevos éoriv, We seem therefore fully justified (with Auth., Rey., Meyer, Hofm., al.) in adopting the punctuation of the text, and, as it would seem, the general view of the early Latin Church. 30. 5 wn KaTéxovrTes] ‘as possessing not,’ scil. as retaining not what they may have bought; an object accusative being mentally supplied in each clause: compare 2 Cor. vi. 10, as pndey Exovrtes, kal The necessity and trials of the time were to be regarded as modifying all the ordinary conditions and relations of life ; ‘summa est, Christiani hominis animum rebus terrenis non debere occupari, nec in illis conquiescere : sic enim vivere nos oportet, quasi singulis momentis migrandum sit e vita,’ Calv. On this subject gener- ally, see the carefully considered wdyTa KaTéxovTes, K2 132 TIPO KOPINOIOY2 WPOTH. 31 pa) KaTéxorTes, Kal ot xpopevoe TOY Ko POV ws pr) KATAXPOMLEVOL’ TAapayEeL yap TO OKA TOV KdopoVv 31. tev Kdécpov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority ; Rec., T@ Kkécu rovre. comments of Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 928, Vol. rv. p. 57 sq. (ed. 2). 31. Kal ol yxpdpevor k-T-A.] ‘and they that use the world as not using it to the full,’ ‘as if they enjoyed it not,’ Arm. : just as they that bought were not to be over- anxious about retaining what they had bought, so they that used the world were only to use it up to the barest bound of their mere actual needs, and nofurther; wdvny ef aitav Thy xpelay kaprovabwoay, Theodoret. The compound kataxpjc@u may mark either (a) ‘ perversitatem usus,’ or (b) ‘abundantiam usus,’ there being lexical authority for each rendering. The Latin Vy. (Copt. only reproduces the Greek words; ith. paraphrases) draw no distine- tion; Syr., and the Greek exposi- tors (silet Chrys.) are in favour of (a); Arm. and the majority of the best modern interpreters adopt (0), —and, as it would seem, rightly; the foregoing clauses seeming to imply in the second member either a simple negation of the verb in the first, or a negation of a further and derivative meaning of it (ayopd¢ew, katexev). With this, and with the tenor of the whole exhortation (ver. 29 sq.), (b) is almost obviously more in contextual harmony than (a): the Apostle did not limit use merely by abuse, but by a form of use that stopped decidedly short of it. The accus. is very unusual after xpiicGa, but is occasionally found in later writers; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 1. 7%. The suggestion of A. Butt- mann is ingenious, and probably true,—that the subsequent kata- xpépevor reflected, as it were, on the preceding xpauevor the case with which it is (in that sense; see exx. in Steph. Thesawr. s. v. Vol. v. p- 1305, ed. Hase) found associated ; Gramm. N. T. p. 157 sq. On the use and abuse of the world see a wise sermon by Jones (of Nayland) Sermons, Xx. p. 244 sqq. (Lond. 1829). Tapaye. yap K-7.A.] ‘ for the fashion of this world passes away,’ like the changing scene in a play (Eurip. Jon, 166); comp. 1 John ii. 17. The present clause is not a reason for 6 kaipbs cvvectad- bévos éotly (Alf.), but confirms the sentiment involved in the preceding clauses, and, as the repetition of the word kécpos clearly implies, the words immediately preceding: they were not to take their enjoyment in this world, for its outward form and fashion was only mpéckaipos, and destined to give place to something more true and durable; kaivovs d€ ovpavods Kal yiv Kawhy kata Td emdry- yeAua dixatoctvn KaToie?t, 2 Pet. iii. 13. The present wapdye: has thus more of its ethical than of its purely temporal meaning: it does not so much call attention to the actual present fact (‘is passing away,’ Alf.), as to the inevitable issue; the oxinua of the world, its ‘ habitus’ (‘qui est nubere, flere, gaudere, emere,’ Beng.), has no enduring character, undéy BeBnkds ral ovaiddes, Theoph. On the deep ethical sig- nificance of the statement, see Martensen, Chr. Eth., Part. § 48, avTod mpocdoKauev, ev ois VIL. 31, 32; 33, 34- 133 tovtov. Oddw S€ tpas dpepiuvous evar. 6 dyapos 32 Hepysrg Ta TOU Kupiov, TOS dpéon TO Kopi 6 8 33 yaprjoras epyrg Ta TOU kéopov, Tas apéon TH yuvaikt. Kal pewépiotar kal 4 yur) Kal » mapbevos. 34 32. apérn) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., apéoex. The above-mentioned edd. also adopt the subj. in ver. 33 and 34. 34. Kal peudpiora wal) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort (but with differences of punctuation; see below), on very clearly pre- ponderating authority, in reference to the first xa/, and very greatly prepon- derating authority, in reference to the second: Rec. omits kal both before and after meudpiora. In what follows, decision is extremely difficult. The preponderant external evidence seems certainly in favour of the position of 7 &yauos after } yuvh: so Treg., Rev.(marg.), Westc. and Hort. As, how- ever, part of this preponderant evidence is weakened by its admitting a second 7 &yauos after wap@évos, and as the above reading would necessitate the connexion of kat weuépiora with ver. 33, and thus seriously impair the clear and sharp antithesis between the two members of that verse, we adopt with Rec., Rev., on certainly fair external authority, the order in the text; believing that the confusion arose from 7 &yauos having been accidentally inserted in early copies where it was also present in its proper place, and then left out in this second and proper place as seeming to be superfluous (Mark iy. 19), which such a state of things necessarily involved; and of these, as he proceeds to show, mar- ried life had, by the nature of the case, its full share. TGs apéon TO Kuplw] ‘how he may please the Lord;’ the sub- junctive, as usual in such forms of sentence, here expressing something p- 140, and on the meaning of oxiua, and its distinction from soppy, comp. notes on Phil. ii. 8. 32. @édAw SE BGs w-7.A.] ‘ But I would have you to be free from anxieties :’ in part a resumption of the éya 5é duay peldoua (ver. 28), in part a statement of advice under the circumstances just specified,—the changing nature of the cyjjua rod It was from no ascetic theories, but from a due consideration of the whole circum- stances of mortal life, its 7d mpéc- kaipov, its cares and anxieties, that the Apostle has given them the counsel already given in the fore- going verses; capa@s edeite roy rijs mapbevias orxordv, Theodoret. He now adds that he desires them, as far as possible, to stand free of the anxieties, Kéquov Tovtov. the pépimvat tod aildvos which may or should take place ; see Winer, Gr. § 41. b, 4. b. In the case of the future (Rec.) the reference is to that which will take place ; but in sentences like the present the dis- tinction is not very sharply marked : comp. notes on Phil. i. 22. 34. Kal pewéprorar] ‘ And there is a division (of interests) also be- tween the wife and the virgin;’ ‘divisa est,’ Clarom., Copt.; ‘quam maxime diversas sibi partes habent,’ Beng.: what is true of the married 154 TIPO KOPINGIOYS ITPOTH. n dyapos pepysva Ta Tov Kuplov, va 7 ayia Kat TO cépatt kal TO Trevpate’ H SE yapnoaca pepire 35 Ta TOV KdopoV, THs dpéon TO avdpl. TodTo Se Tpds TO Uuav avTav ovpdopov héyw, ody wa Bpdyxov after mapOévos. T@ cépart Kal TG mvedpari] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort., on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., céuati nat TVEVMAT. 35. atupopov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very and unmarried in the one sex, is also true (and even in a greater degree) in the other. The verb pe- uépiorat does not mark, simply and generally, that there was a difference between the two, but that their cares and interests were essentially so different as practically to divide them from each other; Tis povtidos Td Sidpopov dette, Theodoret. On the use of the sin- gular peuépiorat, though associated with two nouns, see Kiihner, G7. § 370. 2. b. Such a structure, when the predicate precedes, and the sub- jects are intended to be conceived singly, is by no means uncommon ; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 58. 6. b. B. tva q ayia «.7.A.] ‘that she may be holy both in her body and in her spirit ;’ purpose and object of her pepimvay ra Tov Kupiov: it was a true and practical Mépiuva, no mere sentiment, but an anxious effort to become holy both in body and in spirit (dat. of sphere in which the ayiacuds was to take place; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 31. 6. a), even as He was holy ; ‘sanctitas hic plus quiddam dicit, quam versu 14,’ Beng. Here the moral and personal quality (comp. Eph. i. 4, v. 22, Col. i. 22, al.) is more especially marked and em- phasized. On this important word (connected with &(oua:), which owes all its deeper meaning to the lan- ovyTOuws guage of Revelation, see the ad- mirable article in Cremer, Worterb. p- 32-50, and comp. also Trench, Synon. § 88. The ideas of awe and reverence, which seem to predomi- nate in earlier Greek, become suf- fused in the language of inspiration with that of love (Cremer, p. 33, 34), and so proportionately quickened and elevated into the highest moral conceptions; see the article on ‘Heiligung ’ in Herzog, Real-Encycl. Vol. v. p. 679 sq. 35. Totto 8 «.7.A.] ‘But this I say for your own profit;’ scil. the advice that has been given, directly (ver. 26) and indirectly (ver. 32 sq.), O7t Kaddby GvOpdérwp 7d otTws The Apostle here distinctly marks,—First, that he is speaking for their sakes, and not for the sake of asserting his own apostolic au- thority: secondly, that he is ad- vocating celibacy, not in the abstract, but, on the one hand, with reference to the deep needs, and indeed the mysterious hopes, of the times in which they were living ; and, on the other hand, with reference to their greater freedom (especially in such times) from worldly anxieties and distractions : arédwxev thy aitiav... ov mapa Thy Koltny h Thy amoxny Tis KolTns, GAAG wapa TO TOY yduoy yéeuew gpovridwy, Severian, apud Cramer, Cat. otx tva Bpdxov tpiv émBadrwo)] ‘not that I may eivat. VI. 35, 36. 135 duly emBdro, ada mpds Td eVoyypov Kal edmrdp- eSpov T@ Kupiw amepiomdotas. Ei dé tis doyn- 36 clearly preponderating authority. The reading edmpécedpov (Rec.) in the last clause (in place of edwdpedpov) has scarcely any external support. cast a noose over you;’ scil. not that I may impose on you any en- tangling constraint, 0b tva avayxdow duas, cum. : ‘ laqueo trahuntur in- viti,) Beng. The metaphor is from the capture of wild game (Xen. Cyneget. 11. 4, v1..7, Aristoph. Aves, 527), and points, not to any snare of conscience which the Apostle might thus be laying for them, but simply to the coercive character which the command might carry with it, but which the Apostle here disavows; Thy yap avdyxnv Bpdxuv kadei, Cicum.; compare Hofm. in loc. GAAG mpds Td evoxnpov K.T.A.] ‘but with a view to what is seemly, and to waiting wpon the Lord without distraction ;’ tatement of the Apostle’s purpose on its positive side; he did not wish to put any constraint on them, but to lead them to that seemly attitude and aspect of Christian life (comp. Rom. xiii. 13, 1 Thess. iy. 12) which the exigencies of the times in which they were living required of all who were in earnest. The words that follow form one compound expres- sion under the vinculum of the fore- going article, the dative being under the regimen of the substantive 7d eimdpedpov (Winer, Gr. § 31. 3), and the adverb darepioxdorws (‘sine dis- tractione,’ Est.; comp. Luke x. 40, h 5& Mdp@a wepieamato wep moAAhv diaxoviav) being closely bound up with and enhancing the words which precede it. It was to be a genuine mapedpevey TG Kuply without any admixture of worldly cares; ‘non eogitantes de mundo,’ Syr. 36. EL8é tig «.7.A.] * But if any- one thinketh that he is acting to- wards his virgin daughter in a manner not seemly:’ contrasted (5€) aspect of the matter; if anyone thinks that he is not acting eicxn- uévws towards his virgin daughter (Thy oixelay maida, Theodorus), but in a contrary manner; méAw évraida wep Tay undémw Thy mapbeviay CAomevwy mapexeAevoato, Theodoret. The verb aoxnuovety may mean either (a) ‘ to act unbecomingly,’ 1 Cor. xiii. 5, % aydrn ovK doxnuoved; or (b) ‘to suffer shame,’ as apparently in Deut. xxv. 3, Ezek. xvi. 39; comp. Vulg. (‘ turpem se videri ’), Syr. (‘quod de- spectus sit’), Aith., Arm., Phot., al., and see Schleusner, Lew. s. v., Wetst. in loc. According to this latter view the doxnuoctyn would appear to be involved in the fact of a marriageable daughter still re- maining single (comp. Theod.): as, however, the general tenor of the passage appears to refer to what is toxnuoy in act, as opposed to what is e¥oxnoy in act, and as the use of éml in the prepositional clause (ém Thy mapQévoy aitov) is much more naturally associated with a verb in an active than in a passive sense, we unhesitatingly adopt (a), and understand the clause to refer to the aoxnuocivn involved in throwing temptation in the way of the wap@évos or her suitor, by constraining her to remain unmarried. So Chrys, (but ?) ap. Cram. Cat., and the great majority of modern expositors. A few early interpreters appear to have considered that the reference may 136 TIPOS KOPINGIOYS [POTH. “ NEE ‘ 4 > ~ a nbn eet (A povew ert tiv tapévov avtov vomiler, eav 7 vTép- ‘ 9 > / , a 4 aKJLOS, Kal oUTwS ddeiha yiver Oat, 6 Ode TroveiTw* 37 ovx dpaptdve* yapeitwoav. ds dé eaTyKEV ev TH 37. ev Th Kapdla avrod édpaios} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority in regard of the position of édpaios, and still greater for the retention of avtod: Rec. omits airod, and be to the man’s own map§evla. This, as Severian rightly observes, is pre- cluded by the terms and tenor of the present and of the following verses. éav qf d1répaKkwos | ‘if she have passed the marriage- able prime,’—the xpévov akpijs (Plato, Rep. vi. p. 460 £; ‘ etas nubilis,’ Calv.) judged customarily as suitable for marriage: clause closely asso- ciated with the foregoing (Westc. and Hort remove the usual comma), and pointing to that which would suggest to the father or guardian that he was acting in an unfair and unseemly manner towards his zap- éévos. While she was under age he was not wrong in keeping her at home. The age referred to would of course vary in different countries: ‘hance [rtatem nubilem] juriscon- sulti ab anno duodecimo ad vice- simum definiunt,’ Calv. The uérpios xpdvos axujs is defined by Plato (loc. cit.) as twenty years. Kal odetAer ylvecOar] ‘and it ought so to be;’ scil. and the marriage ought (‘ debet : eo quod melius consulere filie nescit,’ Beng.), after due consideration of the cir- cumstances, to take place: clause dependent on the foregoing «i, and pcinting out the other circumstance, beside the feeling of the father or guardian, which ought in fairness to have weight ; see Phot. im loc., who very pertinently remarks €éxovcioy yap GAN ovK aKotooy Td THiS Tap- The ofrws is regarded by Hofman as referring to, and serving otTas Gevias. to introduce the 6 @éAe: roeltw, but is much more naturally referred to the predominant thought of the whole verse,—marriage, as con- trasted with celibacy ; ofov éxdodvat, Phot. & @€AeL Trove(ToH} ‘let him do what he will,’ 7.e. that which he desireth to do ; not ‘liberum sit ei elocare filium aut non elocare,’ Est., but, ‘let him act in accordance with the opinion he has formed (vouife:) in reference to the particular case ;’ 70 doxovy mpattétw, Theod. The father or guardian is to be free to follow out the course to which his thoughts have been directing him. yapweltwocay] ‘let them marry;’ scil. the daughter and the one who has sought her in marriage. The case, then, con- templated in the verse only occurs when the map@évos has been sought in marriage. To refer the yapeitw- cay to map0évo: generally, or to their suitors generally, is obviously forced and unsatisfactory. The whole tenor of the verse implies that there was another in the case beside the father or guardian and the zap@evos. 37. Os 8 EotyHKev x.7.A.] ‘ But he who standeth firm, or stedfast in his heart :’ the contrasted case. The epithet coming at the close gives an additional force to the clause, —‘ standeth, and that €dpatos ’ (ch. xv. 58, Col. i. 23): €Spaidy riva imotiverat &vOpwrov: oy ovK toxuvoev cadrcdoat 7 Soxovca mapa Tois avOpa- mos aoxnuocivn, em Tay pudaTTovTwY mapOévous Tas Ovyatépus, CAcum. ap. VIL. 37; 38: 137 id > a e a ‘ ¥ > , > , Kapdia adtod éSpaios, pr exwv avayKny, eovotav Sé ever Tept Tod idiov Hedyjpartos, Kal TodTO KeKpiKEV év TH iSia Kapdia, Typety THY EavTod mapUEvor, lal P 4 ‘ c , ‘ , Kaas Toijoe. woTe Kal 6 yapllwv THv Tapevov 38 places é5paios before év 77 Kapdiq. TH idla Kapdia, tnpeiv) So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on preponderating authority: Rec., tf Kapdi¢ ab’rod tod rnpew; Lachm., th Kapdlq rnpeiv. moinoet] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating authority: Lec. a TOLL, 38. yaul(wr thy mdpOevoy adtod) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éxyaul(ev. Thy Cram. Cat. By) Exov avdyKnv) ‘not having any neces- sity ;’ scil. not morally constrained to act otherwise, whether from a fear of the aoxnuoveiy specified in the preceding verse, or from any other reason founded on what was best for the wap@évos under the cir- cumstances (kal oftws dpelrer yive- oa, ver. 36). The term avdyxn and the general tenor of the verses show that the feelings of the map@évos are not alluded to as forming any ele- ment in the decision of the father (contra Phot.), except only so far as they might render the decide still more clear. Duty is the predomin- ating principle. éfovotav St Exer «.7.A.] ‘but hath power in regard of his own will:’ clause in antithesis to the foregoing, and so slightly irregular in its re- lapse to the indicative, though thus better connected with what follows: see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. b, and comp. Buttmann, Newtest. Gr. p. 327. The genitive might here have been used without the zepi (as in Matth. x. 1, and elsewhere), but, as Winer correctly observes (Gr. § 30. 3. 5), would not have had the fulness and definiteness which it gains by its union with the preposi- tion. This ought to be marked in translation ; contrast Auth., al. Kal TotTo Kéxpikev K.T.A.] ‘and hath decided this in his own heart, that he keep his own virgin ;’ the explanatory infinitive (Winer, G7. § 44. 1, Kiihner, Gr. 472. 1. ¢, and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 3) serving to define more clearly the meaning of the pronoun. This repetition of the Y5.0s seems almost designed to mark how completely the matter was left with the father and regarded as dependent on his deliberate judg- ment. It may be that the virgin’s resolves are blended in one with the parent’s (Wordsw.); but this, at any rate, is not in any way specified. The very position of the present clause in its close connexion with the kad@s trovjoet,—not, as it might have been, at the very beginning of the verse,—is not without signifi- cance. The act is praised when it is indisputably the result of a well- considered decision on the part of the parent or guardian: see Hof- mann im loc. moujoet] ‘he will do well:’ he will not merely stand in the position of one who otx auaprdave: (ver. 36), but will be doing that which (as con- ditioned by the terms of the fore- going statement) is positively and morally right; Phot. ap. Cram. Cat. 38. Gore) ‘ So then, consequently:’ Kadds heya Kar épbwoer, 138 WPOS KOPIN@IOYS ITIPOTH. EavToU Kah@s Tovel, Kal 6 pH yapilwy Kpelooov 39 Toujoen. Turvy déderar ef’ dcov xpdvov Lh 6 > \ > Lal 3X \ “~ c > la > / avnp avTns' é€av Se KoynOn 6 dvyp, éeevOépa map0évoy éavtod) So Lachm., Treg., Rev., on appy. preponderating authority; Tisch., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), tiv éavtod mapbévoyv: Rec. omits the three words. In what follows Rec. reads 6 5€ ph éxyaul(wy, but with greatly preponderating authority against it. At the close of the verse Lachm., Tisch., Treg. (with marg.), Rev., Westc. and Hort adopt movjoe on slightly preponderating authority: Rec., mote. 39. Sédera:] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds véue, probably from Rom. vii. 2. In the words that follow, airijs is added by Rec. to avhp (2nd place), but is rejected in the above-mentioned edd. on clearly preponderating authority. statement of the substance of, and what follows from, the two verses which haye preceded; dove here, as usual, marking consequence. In English it is scarcely possible to make a regular distinction in trans- lation between écre and Gp ovr. In the Greek, however, the distinc- tion is very clear, the latter par- ticles expressing a strongly drawn inference, the former simply noting the ‘consecutionem alicujus rei ex antecedentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 771: comp. Kiihner, Gir. § 586. 3, Wilke, Rhet. § 81, p. 265. Kal 6 yautLov... Kal 6 pr yaw. k.7.A.] ‘ both he that giveth his own virgin in marriage doeth well, and he that giveth (her) not in marriage will do—better.’ In this sentence the xkal—kxal is appy. correlative (‘both—and’), though the termina- tion of the two clauses is not strictly similar but contrasted; the same idea of kadorotta being common to both ; compare ch. i. 22, and see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4. rem. It is clear from this passage and from the general tenor of the chapter that St Paul, speaking from his own convictions, deemed that a single life was better ; but it must not be forgotten that in so speaking he was taking special account of the peculiar trials and exigencies of the times; see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1080, Vol. v. p. 13 (ed. 2). 39. 8€Serar.] ‘is bownd,’—ob- viously, as the context suggests, T@ avdpi: compare Rom. vii. 2. The Apostle had spoken about the re- marriage of x7jpa: in a previous por- tion of the chapter (ver. 8): he here reverts to the subject of re- marriage, probably in answer toa question put to him by the Corin- thian Church. That question does not seem to have been one on the sub- ject of divorce generally (Wordsw.), but one called out by the known opinions of the Apostle, and was probably to this effect,—‘ Was re- marriage, in the case of the death of a husband, to be considered per- fectly permissible?’ This the Apostle answers distinctly in the affirmative (€Acev@épa early B O€AEL yaunOiva), but adds a cautionary condition. On the subject of se- cond marriage generally, see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1082, Vol. v. p. 34 sqq. éav Sé x.7.A.] ‘ but if her husband be dead ;’ literally, ‘have fallen on sleep’ (fut. exact), VII. 39, 40. 139 cot & Odder yapnOyvar, povov év Kupiw. paka- 40 pwtépa 8é éotw eav ovTws pelvy, KaTa THY Eun yvdépnv’ Soxd Sé Kaya IIvedua Ocovd Exew. an obvious and natural euphemism found in writers of all periods (Hom. II. xi. 241, komhoaro xdAKeoy trvoy ; Theoer. Idyll, 111. 49, &tpomos trvos; Hor. Carm. 1. 24. 5, ‘per- petuus sopor’), but more especially in the writers of the Old and New Testament (Deut. xxxi. 16, 1 Kings ii. 10, al., ‘slept with his fathers ;’ John xi. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 4, al.); see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 13. pdvov év Kuply | ‘onlyin the Lord;’ the yaun$jva is to be so conditioned : it is to be an act done, as it were, in that holy element, and as the Lord Himself would direct. It is clearly more than merely wera ow- ppocivns, mera Koomidrntos. It dis- tinctly implies that it is to be a marriage with a Christian (dmo- miotw, Theod. 1; so Tertullian, Cy- prian, Jerome, al.); otherwise the expression éy Kupiw would be inap- plicable, or, at any rate, void of its fuller significance: compare Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 95.6, Vol. 1. p. 95 (Transl.). On the expression éy Kupi@, see Cremer, Wurterb. p. 385, and compare notes on Eph. iv. I, vi. I, al. 40. pakaptworépa] ‘more blessed,’ sc. more spiritually happy in such a decision, as being more free to serve the Lord continuously and without distraction ; comp. ver. 34. The word, as De Wette rightly observes, has in the N. T. always a higher mean- ing than that of mere happiness. In the earliest Greek the epithet in the shorter form pdxap is frequently associated with @eof (comp. 1 Tim. i. II, vi. 15, and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 289), the ideas of ‘ might’ and ‘greatness’ being those conveyed by the original root (mak): see Curtius, Htym. No. go, p. 148 (ed. 2), Fick, Indo-Germ. Wiorterb. p. 144. In regard of the sentiment expressed, it may be said that just as Mary (Luke x. 42) might be regarded as vakapiwrépa in reference to her over-busy sister Martha, so might the widow who remains so, in reference to one who marries again and becomes necessarily in- volved in the anxieties and cares of daily life, at a time, too, marked with avdyxn (ver. 26) and trials. The Apostle conditions this by the kara Thv eunv yvounvy (‘my judgment,’ kara Thy euhvy mapalveow Kal oup- Bovajy, Phot.), but again enhances that yvaéun by what follows. S0KO S Kay] ‘and I think that I also,’—I, as well as other teachers ; the 5& introducing the enhancing, and so slightly contrasted, clause which marks the real character of the yvaéun. In the doné there is nothing of a rebukeful tone towards any who might doubt the Apostle’s words (Wordsworth): it is simply brovoe, jyovua (Gicum.); implying, however, in its very reserve the grave claim to attention which the counsel demanded. The xa in the Kaye appy. does not point to any special class of opponents, but simply contrasts the speaker with others, whosoever they might be,who, not unlikely, claimed to speak with plenary authority: comp. Hofmann in loc. In the text Westc. and Hort (Treg. marg.) read d0x@ ydp, but on authority [B; 17; 37; Tol., Syr.- -Harcl., al.) which, though of critical 140 VU. Tlepi dé trav cidwdofbtwr, oida- TIPO KOPINOIOYS ITPOTH. An idol has no real existence, and so eat- ing what is offered to it is a matter of indifference ; but, for the sake of the weak, it should be avoided. importance, can hardly be con- sidered sufficient, even when resting on internal grounds, to justify the change. Nvetpa Ocod] ‘ the Spirit of God:’ tatra ex rod mavaryiov Iveiuaros Aadoduey, Phot. The full and obvious meaning of these words is in no way to be diluted ; the Apostle in fact claims to be, and truly claims to be, an bpyavov (Theod.) of the Holy Spirit. The assertion, often made, and at first sight plausible, that Mvetpya without the article marks an opera- tion or gift of the Spirit, rather than the personal Spirit (Westcott, on John vii. 39) cannot be regarded as of universal application in the N. T. Sometimes Nvevua appears distinctly to have the same latitude as a proper name (see Winer, Gr. § 19. I. a); sometimes, as here, it is associated with a word that is frequently anarthrous, and so, on the principle of correlation (Mid- dleton, Art. m1. 3. 6, Kiihner, Gr. § 462), commonly becomes also an- arthrous: see notes on Gal. v. 5, and consider the exx. in Winer, G7. § 19. I, Ss. v. Oeds and Ivedua. IV. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE EATING OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND TO THE TAKING PART IN FEASTS MADE IN THEIR HONOUR (ch. viii. 1-xi. 1.). VIII. 1-13. Theright view of idols and things offered to them, with the modifying judgment of charity. I. Mepi 8 TOv ciSwroOU Tov] ‘ Now concerning the things offered to idols ;’ transition, by means of the usual St petaBatixdy (notes on Gal. i. 11), to another subject which had been brought before the Apostle by the questions addressed tohim. The ac- tual answer is deferred till ver. 4,— when the subject is resumed after the parenthetical comments (7) yv@ots puoi... &yvworat tr avrov) sug- gested by the statement ofSapey drt To make the parenthesis begin with dr (‘ qwia. Declaratur 7d scimus.’ Beng., al.) is structurally harsh, and exegetic- ally improbable, as ofSauev 67: in ver. I and ver. 4 seem corresponsive, and the dr: in both cases exponen- tial, ‘we know that,’ &c. The sen- tence is in fact in each an ordinary expository, or, as it is sometimes called, objective sentence : see Don- alds. Gr. § 584 sq. The term eiS8aA60uTa occurs Acts xy. 29, where it is a sort of compendious mode of expressing the aAicyjuara Toy cidéAwy mentioned by St James in yer. 20: comp. Acts xxi. 25, Rev. ii. 14, 20. These cidwAdéuta were the ‘carnes animalium e sacrificiis relique’ (Valck.), which, after the priest had taken his portion, were returned to those who had offered them, and were commonly consumed at feasts, either in the temple (comp. ver. 10), or in their own houses (comp. ch. xi. 27), it being the regu- larly received principle, rovs ék Ovalas idvras pépew e& avtis Ovotas Where they were not thus disposed of they were sold in the market: comp. ch. x. 25. On the TAYTES YY@OW EXOMEV. > / OLKELOLS, . eustoms connected with sacrifices, see Hofmann, Lexicon Universale (Contin.), s. v. ‘Victims,’ Vol. mz. p- 181, Hermann, Gottesdienstl. Alterth. § 28, and on the absence of all reference to the decision in Acts VES Ye. 9: 141 Lal e nw A“ pe OTL TavTEs yuoow Exoper. 1) yrdois dvorot, 7 dé dyday oikodopel. et Tis SoKet €yvwKeva TL, ovTW 2 2. ef tis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., ei 5€ ts. éyvwrévat) So the above- named edd., on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., édévat, In what follows, ofw &yvw is adopted in all the above edd.,—otmw, on clearly preponderating authority, yyw and the omission of oddéy, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., obdérw obdtv éyvwxe, xy. 20, Bp. Lightfoot, Dissert. on Gal. iii. 2. awdvres yv@ouv Exowev) ‘we all have knowledge,’ scil. in regard of this particular matter, the nature of eidwAddura. The exact reference of these words is a little doubtful. It has been urged, on the one hand, that the Apostle is here referring to the more illumi- nated (pds tobs reAelous diadeyerai, Theoph.),‘I and all rightly informed persons ;’so Meyer, al. On the other hand,the statement has been referred generally to all Christians, ‘We all of us, as Christians and not pagans;’ so De Wette, al. In the first case, however, the cautionary and cor- rective clause 7 yv@ots puciol K.7.A. seems to have no particular force. In the second case there seems no need whatever for the mayres. We therefore, with Hofm., al., regard the words as referring to the Corin- thians, and perhaps as taken from their very letter. The cautionary clause then comes in with its natural and appropriate force, ‘We know, to use your own words, that, &c.; re- member, however, that it is not on knowledge, but on love that every- thing really turns.’ The apparently converse statement which then fol- lows in ver. 7, GAN’ ovK ev racw 7 yvaois, becomes perfectly intelligi- ble; ‘you may think that all among you have this true knowledge, but it really is not so; there are some whose conscience is greatly exercised in the matter.’ The Apostle, it should be observed, is not so much definitely censuring (Chrys.), or deal- ing ironically (Theod.), with the Corinthians who put the question (probably in the form ‘are we not perfectly free in the matter?’ jyiv oun EoTw eidwadOutov, Sever.), as bringing home to them the fact that the answer was not quite so easy as they might suppose, as it depended not merely on yvéois, but on dydrn. Compare Calvin in loc., who appears to have rightly caught the general sentiment of the passage: so too Chrysostom, except that he sees in the words a more direct censure of the Corinthians than the context seems to imply. 4) yvGots vovot x.7.d.] ‘ Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth;’ the article giving each noun its most generic meaning and application (Middleton, Greek Art. v. 5. 1, p. 89): comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 1. a, note. Know- ledge, the Apostle says, regarded in the abstract, tends to puff up with pride: love, on the other hand, builds up alike the individual towards whom it is shown (Rom. xiv. 15), and the Church generally (Eph. iv. 12, 16): comp. Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 38. 1, p- 327 (Transl.), and on the contrast between the knowledge which is of faith and the knowledge here re- ferred to, see ib. § 18. 4, p. 159 sq. 2. eC tig Soxet x.7.A.] ‘Tf any man thinketh that he knoweth any- 142 3 eyvw Kallas Set yvovar’ thing ;’ elucidation of the 7 yvaois vow, the absence of any connect- ing particle giving the words a fuller didactic force. The Apostle makes it clear in what sense he was using the word yvéois, viz. not as a real and true, but only as a supposed, knowledge; the doxe? (‘ existimat,’ Vulg.) implying some amount of subjective persuasion on the subject: see notes on ch. iii. 18, and comp. Hofm. in loc. The reading of the text, éyvwxévat, is here, on exegetical as well as critical grounds, much more consonant with the tenor of the passage than cidéva; the idea of mental attention on the part of the knower (‘ cognoscere’), and so, of more inward knowledge, being that which is here involved in the context: eidéva: (‘ scire ’) would only imply that the object or fact came within the sphere of observation ; see notes on ch. ii. II. ot To zyvo K.7.A.] ‘he doth not yet know as he ought to know ;’ not merely ‘he has had no practice in the art of knowing’ (Alf.), but, ‘he has not yet come to the knowledge of the true manner (‘videlicet per viam amoris,’ Beng.) in which he ought to know.’ Without love (comp. ch. xiii. 2) his knowledge will never be more than a mere superficial _know- ledge,—a knowledge of no real use in the practical questions now under consideration. The évdérw ovdev of Rec. would make the comment more caustic, as it would imply that the 6 BSoxay k.7.A., not only had not yet come to know the matter properly, but had not yet even come to know properly anything at all,—not even his own ignorance: comp. Hofmann in loc. 3. et 8€ Tug ayarad Tov O-év] IIPOS KOPINGIOY> MPOTE: el O€ Tis yama Tov Ocdr, ‘ But if any man loveth God :’ has love in its highest and fullest degree —for God is love (1 John iy. 17) and love of Him includes all other forms of love; ‘amorem Dei sequi- tur amor proximi,’ Beng. éyvworar bm’ avtod)] ‘this man’ (emphatic,—he, and not the 6 doxév eyvorévat) ‘is known of Him;”’ scil. is himself the object of the highest conceivable knowledge,—the divine knowledge; see Winer, Gr. § 39, rem. 2, comp. Gal. iv. 9. The inter- pretations of this clause are very numerous, some intercalating a thought not in the context («nde- povias tuyxdver, Theod.; ‘ reputatur inter filios,’ Calv.; ‘ preecognitus est, preedilectus ac predestinatus,’ Est.), others giving the verb a causative sense (‘ scire factus est ab eo,’ Beza), for which there is not a shadow of lexical authority. The true and natural interpretation seems per- fectly clear: the Apostle, instead of saying, ‘he that loves God has yveors in its truest form,’ drops the lower thought and takes the higher one, ‘is himself the object of God’s knowledge,’ the higher thought here necessarily involving the lower. That he whom God vouchsafes to know has himself true knowledge is a truth that may be regarded as almost self-evident: so rightly, Theophyl.: ywords d€ yevouevos TG OCG yvaow map’ avtTod AauBdver. On the deep meaning of the ‘being known of God’ (Exod. xxxiii. 12, 17, Gal. iv. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 19), comp. Severian (Cramer, Cat.), AawBaverar yap 7d TIS yvaocws Kat em oikedoews (he explains the éyvwora: «.7,.A. by the words oikeodra ottos Tovs ayamGyTas), Gonep To Tis ayvolas Kal em) GAdo- Tpiagews* oiov ear TH brd TOD Kupiov VIE’ 3,.4,'S) 145 A ¥ ee > A Rin , > ovTos eyvwotat v7 avdtod. Tlepi rns Bpdoews odv 4 cal > , ¥ Lg > \ ¥ > / Tov cidwhoPdrar, o(Sapev OTL OVSEV E’dwdov ev Koo LY, ,¢ > ‘\ ‘ > \ © ‘ ‘ » ja Kal OTL ovSels Ocds Et 7} Els. Kal yap eirep cial Ney- 5 4. odSels eds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds €repos, pn@ty +d, awéddere, oddémote Eyvwv juas; see also the valuable remarks of Hofmann, Schriftbew. Part t. p- 225 (ed. 1), and comp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 762. 4. Mlept THs Bpdoews otv k.7.A.] ‘Concerning then the eating of things offered to idols ;’ odv having here its reswmptive force (see notes on Gal. iii. 5, and on Phil. iii. 1), and referring back to ver. 1. On the collective force of this particle, see above, notes on ch. vii. 26. The frequent occurrence of this particle in the N. T. renders it difficult to maintain any rigid rule of transla- tion; but, in cases like the present, the lighter ‘then’ (‘igitur,’ Beza), seems more exact than the heavier and more illative ‘ therefore’ (Auth., Rey.). The insertion of the words tis Bpdcews defines more exactly the more general cidwAo@irwy in ver. I. ovStv etSwXov év Kéopq] ‘ there is no idol in the world ;’ no image or likeness—the emphasis slightly resting on eYdwAov —to which there is any correspond- ing reality. Idols there were, but that which they were ynderstood to represent had no existence; an idol was a gavtacla Wevdis, Hab. ii. 18 (LXX), a name only (évéuata imd gpavrov Kal dvonrov Sdtns wemoipéva, Joseph. Antig. vt. 13. 6), and nota being’s image. So De Wette, Meyer, Hofmann, and most modern exposi- tors. The usual rendering, ‘ an idol is nothing in the world,’ scil. is a ‘non-ens’ (Arm.), and has nothing in the world which answers to it, is supported by Syr,, Vulg. (‘nihil est idolum’), Clarom., Copt., Arm., Theoph., Gcum., Beng., Auth., al., but is open to the grave exegetical objection that thus, in two contigu- ous and closely similar clauses the same word (ovdels) would be used predicatively in one clause, but at- tributively in the other; and fur- ther, that év kéouw would thus be unmeaning and otiose. These ob- jections appear to be so valid that, in spite of the almost unanimous authority of the ancient Vv. (except appy. 4ith.-Pol.), we seem justified in regarding ovSéy e¥SwAoy «.7.A. and ovdels Oeds x.7.A. as structurally parallel. So appy. Chrys., though usually claimed on the other side. 5. Kal yap eltrep «.7.A.] ‘ For even if there really exist gods so- called ;’ explanation of the two statements in the preceding verse, the «at annexing closely, and here with some slightly ascensive force, the confirmatory ydp (see notes on Phil. ii. 27), and the 7ép in the efzrep (‘si omnino,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p- 528), as usually, giving point to and enhancing the condition,— if there really are, as is alleged,’ &c.: see notes on Gal. iii. 4, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 69. 23, and on the use of the wép, the excellent comments of Kiihner, Gr. § 510: see also below. The Apostle does not here assert that these so-called gods exist, but simply puts the case hypothetically, as an assumed possibility, basing the as- sumption on the statement in the last clause of the verse; see below. 144 TIPO KOPINGIOYS IIPOTH. , » eR 5 g w » oe a, lal wa eke | Opevor Ment Eire Ev OVPAY@ ETE ETL yHs, @oTEp ciolv 6 Oeot woddot Kat KUptou TodXol, GAN Hut eis Ocds c / > e ‘ , \ € ~ > > rd ‘ e 6 matyp €€ ov Ta TAVTA Kal Hmets Eis avTOV, Kal Es 5. vis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec. prefixes rijs. Who the Apostle really deemed these so-called @coi actually to be, comes out clearly in ch. x. 20; see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 70. c, Vol. 1. p- 360 (Transl.), and comp. Mar- tensen, Chr. Dogm. § 68. obs. p. 129 (Transl.). See below. eite é€v ovpava cite emi yiis] “whether in heaven or on earth ;’ whether beings supposed to dwell in heaven, like the Olympian deities, or on earth, like the local deities of the woods and rivers. The words serve to explain the Aeydéuevor Oeoi which the Apostle then had in his thoughts. Sotrep cioiv k.7.A.] ‘just as there exist gods many and lords many;’ super- human beings, angels and powers, to whom these titles are conven- tionally given (Deut. x. 17; comp. Xxxli. 17); the éo7mep bringing out sharply (‘7ép acuit eam notionem cui subjecta est,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. um. p. 724; comp. Donalds. Crat. § 178, and see further reff. in notes on ver. 13) the statement that follows. The cicly thus has the same meaning in both clauses—real, not supposed, existence (De Wette, al.), the emphatic position of the verb in both clauses appearing dis- tinctly to imply this stronger mean- ing. The interpreters who, like De Wette, consider both clauses as spoken ‘from the standpoint of Gen- tile superstition’ (comp. Theoph., Ecum.), are constrained not only to give a weaker force to the eioly than its position would seem to require, but to take efrep in a concessive sense (‘etsi,’ Vulg., ef Kal eiot Aeyd- pevot Oeot, Theoph.) which it is doubtful whether the particle bears directly in ordinary Greek prose: comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 578. obs. 2, where, it will be observed, all the exx. - are from Homer. 6. GAN Apiv ets «.7.A.] * Vet to us there is one God, the Father ;’ apodosis to the etrep .7.A. of verse 5, the dada having its sharp antithe- tical force and contrasting what follows with the assumption of the preceding verse; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 93, and notes on ch. iy. 15. The words 6 zarnp, like the "Incovs Xpiords in the next clause but one, are in apposition to the preceding noun, the object of the Apostle being so to characterize the eis eds as to make the conception of any real plurality of Gods ap- pear to be still more inadmissible : comp. Hofmann, Schriftb. Part 1. p. 302 sq. 退 08 Ta TavTA k.7.A.] ‘from whom are all things, and we unto Him;’ God is the causal fount and origin of all things (Rom. xi. 36), and the blessed end and object, the ‘ causa finalis’ (comp. Col. i. 16) for which we (‘ credentes,’ Beng.) were called into being, the ‘finis fidelium,’ as Bengel well ex- presses it; see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. Vol. 1. § 28, p. 355 (Transl.). On the profound meaning of the é 06 72 mavTa (THY Snutovpylay A€yel, Chrys.), by which not merely the existence, but the first origin of the VIII. 6, 2 145 Kupvos “Inoots Xpuoros, 80 06 ta wdvta Kal Hpets dv avrov. “ANN odk &v Taagw y yrdots’ TWés 7 dé 7) ouvnfeia ews api Tov ciSdov ws €idwé6- 7. guvnbeia €ws &pri) So, as to words and order, Lachm., Tisch., Treq., Rev., Westc. and Hort; the first word on preponderating, and the order on greatly preponderating, authority ; Rec., cvvedioe tod ciddAov Ews Uti. See above. 7a mdvra is referred to the working of the Divine Omnipotence, see Van Oosterzee, Chr. Dogmatics, § 56. 2, p. 301 (Transl.). 8’ od Ta wdavra)] ‘through whom are all things,’ scil. through whose blessed instrumentality all things that are, the totality of things (ra mdyta is collective), were created and made: see Joh. i. 3, mavra (all things viewed in their severalty) 50 adrod éeyévero, Heb. i. 2, 5:’ of kal eroince rods aiavas, and comp. Col. i. 15, €v ad’r@ exric@n 7a mayvta,—in which last passage though the preposition is different, and the reference to the Eternal Son rather as the ‘causa condition- alis’ (see notes in loc.), the depend- ence of ra mdyta on Him is equally clearly set forth. All limitations of the second 7a ravta (7d Tay avOpérwy vevos, Chrys., ‘all that needs re- demption,’ Baur) are wholly in- admissible: the words must have the same scope and inclusiveness in both clauses. Kal fpeis 8 avtot) ‘and we through Him ;’ with reference to the new creation in Christ (kawh «riots, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15; comp. Eph. ii. 10) of which He is equally the ‘causa medians:’ 8’ airov eis td elvau maphxonuev, kal eis Td €d elvar, Theoph. As in the first member of the verse theeis airdy has an et)ical reference, so here the &’ airod. It is through Christ that we are called, as His new creation, into that true being and existence which is implied in the foregoing «is airév. To refer the words to the physical creation, or, loosely and vaguely, to the cwrnpla which comes from Him (Theodoret), mars the exegetical parallelism of the clauses. Having thus contrasted the God and Lord of the Christian with the meaningless idols of the heathen, the Apostle does not pause to draw the obvious inference, —that to eat cidwAdéura is in itself a matter of indifference. 7. “AAN od« év Tao 4 yvdars] ‘ Howbeit there is not in all men the knowledge (in question) :’ contrasted statement, by means of the stronger adversative aAAd, to the position laid down in verse 4; otmw &yvwoay Kabas Set yv@vat (ver. 2). TH ovvnGeia «.7.A.] ‘ by their being accustomed until now to the idol ;’ the dative expressing the grownd or subjective cause of the 7d éecbiew ads eidwAdbvrovy: see Winer, Gr. § 31. 6.c, notes on Phil. ii. 3, and the good collection of examples from classical Greek in Kiihner, Gr. § 425. 8. In all such instances of the use of the dative we trace the defining character of the case, and its quali- fying relation to the whole sentence : see Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 259 sq. In the expression ovynfela tod €id- édov (‘the being accustomed to the idol ’) the gen, is the ordinary genit- ive of the ‘ object’ after a subst. ex- pressive of internal or external activity: comp. Plato, Theet. p. 168 B, ek cuvnbelas pnudrwy tre cal L 146 TIPO KOPINSIOY> TIPOTH. > , a .& , 7, A 5 ‘ Outov éobiovow, Kat ovveidnots attav aces 8 otoa podvverat. Bpopa Sé Huas od Tapactyce 8. mapacrhoe:] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre- ponderating authority; Rec. rapiornot. In what follows, the reading is very doubtful. omit yap (Rec.) after otre. The same edd. on similar authority The reading in the text is supported by Westc. and Hort, and by Treg., Rev. (who, however, adopt wepiocevdueba); Lachm. interchanges borepotpeba and évouarwy, and see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. a. The expression is further defined by the loosely added €ws &pre (compare Gal. i. 13, Thy euhy ava- otpopiy more, Phil. i. 26, Tis euijs map- ovalas maAwv)+ long habitude prior to conversion lasted, even after it (uera 7 moredoa, Theoph.), sufficiently to keep up the feeling that the offering was made to something really existent: see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 36, p. 319 (Transl.), where the meaning of the clause is well brought out. The reading cuveidjoe: is maintained by Reiche, Meyer, Heinrici, al., as being the more difficult reading, but in the face of evidence [N' ABP; 17; Memph., al.], which, even if the assertion as to ovveid. being the more difficult reading were admitted, it would seem highly precarious to reverse. It is, however, quite as likely that cvveidqoe: (derived from the latter portion of the verse), was a correction of cuvybela, as vice versa. Kal ouvelSqots K.7.A.] ‘and their conscience being weak is defiled ;’ scarcely ‘ because it is’ (De Wette, Meyer; ‘ cum sit infirma,’ Vulg.), which expresses too strongly the simple secondary pre- dication. The participle is here ‘ cir- cumstantial’ rather than ‘causal’ (see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 10), andis most exactly expressed by the English participle: their conscience was weak, and being such became defiled. On the meaning of ov- elSnots, see Sanderson, de Obl. Conse. 1. 4 sq. Vol. iv. p. 3 (ed. Jacobs.), and on its use in the N. T., Harless, Chr. Eth. § 45 sqq. (Transl.), and the valuable article in Cremer, Bibl.- Theol. Worterb. p. 233. On the essential nature of the conscience (consciousness of a holy, invisible authority given by the authority itself), see especially Martensen, Chr. Ethies, Vol. 1. § 117 sq., p.359 (Transl), and, on its natural supre- macy, Butler, Serm. 2, 3. In the ease of the tivés before us, the con- science was weak; or, in other words, this natural guide (Butler), was, from not having been properly instructed, a hesitating guide: the cidwAdbuToy was eaten with a vague feeling that the eéwAor really repre- sented something, and the result was a feeling of moral defilement: the weak conscience is defiled with the consciousness of guilt; see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 93, Vol. 1. p. 40 (Transl.), and compare Delitzsch, Psychol. § 1v. p. 166 (Transl.). For exx. of this ethical use of poAtww [connected with péAas, from a Sanser. root mal, Fick, Indo-Germ. Worterb. p. 151, Curtius, Gr. Htym. § 551, p. 332, ed. 2], see Sir. xxi. 28, woddver THY EavTov Wuxiy 6 Wibv- p (wv, Plato, Republ. vu. p. 535 =, ey apabia porvyecbar; and comp. 2 Cor. vii. I, moAvopotd capkds Kah TVEULATOS. 8. Bpdpa Sé «.7.d.] ‘But meat (food, in its most general sense; NM SF 5: TO Ocw’ ovre eav ddywper, TEpLa-wEvOMeE?, 147 ¥ >s ‘ , e 4, ovTe €av pr) hayoper, voTepovpcla, Brérete Se 9 repircevoury: Rec. and Tisch., eav pdywuev wepiooedouer, obre eddy ui) pdywuer borepotueda, with good external authority, but opp. to AB; 17; Memph., Am., al., and with the high probability against it of a correction in favour of the more usual order. comp. Rom. xiv. 17) will not present us unto God,’ scil. for approval or disapproval; statement, introduced by means of the sub-explanatory and slightly contrasting 5¢ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 362; comp. notes on Gal. iii. 23), of the true view that ought to be entertained (‘ Let it be noted, however, that’), in contradistinetion to what might seem to be suggested by ver. 7, viz. that it was positively right to eat, to show moral strength and the recognition of the principle of ver. 4; comp. Theodoret im loc. The verb mapiornu: is designedly chosen rather than cvvicrnu: (Rom. y. 8, xvi. I, al.), as a more purely neutral word: food, the Apostle says, does not per se ‘ bring us before God’ in any moral aspect: it places us in no moral relation with Him, whether in regard of approval or disap- proval: ‘usus ciborum nihil facit ad pietatem,’ Estius. The full force of the statement, and the neutral aspect of tapaorjce is brought out in the double-membered clause that follows. The future seems chosen, rather than the present, as marking something which, it is conceivable, might occur, but which, it is here said, will not ever occur: comp. Rom. v. 7, uédAts yap brép Sixalov tis amro8aveira:, and see Winer, Gr. § 40, 6, Kiihner, Gr. § 387. 2. ‘do we lack,’ scil. anything in regard of our relation to God ; éAarrovjeba, Theoph. ‘ inopia laboramus,’ Grimm. The verb icrep- eic@a:is thus used both with (Rom. torepotpesa) iii. 23) and without (Luke xv. 14, 2 Cor. xi. 8, Heb. xi. 37, and Phil. iv. 12, where it is similarly in opp. to repicoevew) a case following it. It is found with a prepositional mem- ber, above, ch. i. 7. Whether it be middle or passive, may be considered doubtful,—such cases being com- monly decided by the context (see Winer, Gr. § 39. 3. 3), and there being here nothing to guide us. On the whole, the passive seems rather the more probable; see ch. i. 7, Heb. xi. 37. TrEpLoceEd- opev] ‘do we abound, have we over- plus,’ scil. in the way of special approval from God; mepicody tt éxouev Kal evdokimoduey mapa Te @cw, Theoph. The reading zepic- cevdueba is supported by B and Origen, but, independently of the amount of evidence for the active form, may have been due to a mechanical repetition (in transcrip- tion) of the form which just pre- ceded. On the _ transcriptional errors in B, see Westcott and Hort, Introd. to N. T. § 312, p. 233 sq. Q. BdAéwere GS «x.7.A.] ‘take heed, however, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak :’ cau- tion suggested by the very terms of the preceding verse; ‘if it be true that this eating or not-eating is a matter of complete indifference, yet (5€) beware of any harmful use of your Christian liberty.’ As Severian (Cram. Cat.) rightly observes,—rd ev KatopOotmevoy wuiv obdéy~ rd dé L2 148 IIPOZ KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH, , ¢ , ena Y by Tos efovoia tpOv avtn TpdoKoppa yévntar lal , 10 Tots aobevéow. €av yap Tis On oé Tov eyovTa lal 7 yroow ev cidwhelm Katakeipevor, odyt } cvveldnots 9. aobevéow) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority : Rec., aa0évovow, BArdrrov rovs aobeveorépovs méya. The buay, as the structure of the verse indicates, is not without its force, ‘quam obnixe tuemini, ver. II,’ Beng. On the subject generally of avoidance of offence, see Rothe, Chr, Eth. § 1027, Vol. rv. p. 263 sqq. (ed. 2), and on the limits of the permissible, Martensen, Chr. Eth. Part 1. § 134 sq., p. 418 sqq. (Transl.). aTpdéckop,pe | ‘stumblingblock,’ ‘ offendiculum,’ Vulg.; scarcely distinguishable in its ethical meaning from ocxdydadov (comp. Rom. xiv. 13, where both words are used), except as perhaps implying more definitely an obstacle, and something standing in the way or placed as such: contrast Matth. xviii. 7, Luke xvii. 1, eA@ety 7a oKdvdada, where mpookdumara could scarcely have been used. Perhaps we may trace this same sort of idea in the LXX association of A{os with mpdcroupa (Rom. ix. 32, 33, 1 Pet. ii. 8), and wérpa with cxavia- Aov (Rom. l. c., 1 Pet. U. c.). On oKavdadov, see notes on Gal. v. Il. 10. éav yap tis x.7.A.] Con- firmation (yap) of what has been just said, and the need shown for the forbearing caution which the Apostle is advising. TOV éxovta yvaouv] ‘who hast know- ledge ;’ certainly not, ‘quippe qui cognitionem habes,’ Meyer,-—a ren- dering which suggests the absence, not the presence, of the article; comp. Donalds. Crat. § 305, Gramm. § 490. ‘The reading is not perfectly certain. The pronoun ge is omitted by BFG.; Vulg., Orig. (Lat.), al., and is placed in brackets by Lachm., Westc. and Hort, but is apparently genuine, the authority for its inser- tion being good, and slightly pre- ponderant. év elSArcto Katakewevov] ‘sitting at meat— in an idol’s temple ;’ not only eating cidwrdduta, but so carried away by the inconsiderately used liberty, as to eat them in the very courts of the eidwArciov: tmédete 5€ 1d péyebos, Theod. The word eidwAcioy (‘ vocabu- lum aptum ad deterrendum,’ Beng.) is not found in ordinary Greek. It occurs, however, in the LXX, 1 Mace. i. 47, x. 83, 1 Esdr. ii. 9. This €upiroxwpeiy rots eidéAas (to use the words of Chrysostom) though not here directly forbidden, is inferentially so, in the illustration here supplied of one already ac6evijs being made still more so by the un- seemly and culpable act: comp. Chrys. in loc. ovxl A ovvetSnats «.7.A.] ‘will not his conscience be edified ?’ — literally ‘builded up’ (‘ edificabitur,’ Vulg.; ‘timrjada,’ Goth. ; sim. Copt., Arm.), with an obyious tinge of irony, the verb retaining its usual ethical sense, but, as the context shows, in an inverted sense, viz. edified to do,—not that which the con- science approves of ; but that about which it is uneasy and disquieted. The translation ‘be emboldened,’ Auth., Rev. (‘be confirmed,’ Syr., ‘be induced,’ Aith.), expresses the general sense, but misses the deli- cate irony which the word seems Wiley TO, F7 149 3. A +9 ~ ¥ > , fk eae . avtov aabevods dvTos oikodopnOyoera eis TO Ta eidwddOuta eobiew ; amod\\uTa yap 6 dobevav ev II “ ”~ , c > ‘ 7 A ‘\ > / TH ON yudre, 6 adedds Sv dv Xpiotds areBaver. 11. awdddvTrar ydp] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on preponderating authority: Rec., cat drodcirat. év TH of} yvdor, 5 adeApds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., ddeApds emt rH off yvodoes. chosen to convey: it was an oiko- douy that was really a xa@alpecis, an ‘ edificatio ad ruinam’ (Tertullian, Prescr. cap. 8). adabevots bvros} ‘inasmuch as he is weak :’ participial clause defining and giving point to what follows. It is just because the man has a weak con- science that his so-called edification is really mischievous and ruinous. He doubts; he is led on by the reckless example (avr) mapa:véoews 70 mpayua Séxerat, Chrys.) to do what he inwardly feels to be doubt- ful, and his whole moral character suffers in consequence. It is not from faith and a true recognition of the principle of ver. 4 that he eats the eiSwAdéura, but simply from the force of an inconsiderate example. The participle is here not hypo- thetical (‘if he is weak’), and cer- tainly not predicative (‘who is weak’), but causal; it accounts for the statement that is implied in the words that follow; see Donalds. Gr. § 615, 616. elg TO TH elSarA60uTa eoGlerv] ‘unto the eat- ing of things offered to idols ;’ not simply ‘to eat, &c.,’ with a mere reference to the result,—a meaning doubtful in St Paul’s Epistles (see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 12), but with some tinge of the idea of direction, as suggested by the preposition: the eating what was offered to idols is that to which the olxodouy ulti- mately leads : ‘ruunt ad tentandum quod sibi licere non putabaunt,’ Calvin. II, dawéd\AvTat yap 6 dobevdv] ‘ For (thus) he that is weak perishes :’ confirmatory explanation (ydp, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 240; comp. notes on Gal. ii. 6) of the ‘ edificatio ruinosa’ (Caly.) implied in the pre- ceding words. The damdAca here referred to is the dAcBpos aidyvios (2 Thess. 1.9) which the acting against the dictates of conscience, grieving, and ultimately quenching, the Holy Spirit, brings with it in the course of dreadful consequence: ‘memi- nerimus ergo nos in exitium ruere, quoties adversus conscientiam per- gimus,’ Calvin. Observe that, in the case supposed, the man remains acobevys in his faith (6 acbevar), and so continues to sin against his conscience as often as he acts under the influence of the evil example. Had the example helped him to see the matter in its true light, it would have been otherwise : comp. Hofm. im loc. év TH of yvdoet]) ‘through thy knowledge;’ the év here having its instrumental force : the 7d ddAAvoba is regarded as in- volved in, and existing in the reck- lessly displayed yv@o1s; see Winer, Gr. § 48. 3. d, Kiihner, Gr. § 431. 3, and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18. In verse I yvaors was spoken of as puff- ing up: its more dreadful action is here brought out. It not only in- volves (to use a modern expression) no altruism, but the very reverse: it is really uiocdeddla (Theod.) 6 &beAbds x-7.A.] ‘ the brother for whom Christ died;’ with great 150 IIPOS KOPINGIOY> ITPOTH. 9 12 ovTws S€ dpapTavortes eis TOVs dde\dovs Kal TU7- TovTes avTav THY ovveidnow dobevodtoar, eis 13 Xpiotdv dpaprtavere. Sidrep ci BpOpa oravdadtler rhetorical force,—not only a Chris- tian brother, but one whom Christ died to save; é€Gs aitby damddAAvobat Meta Thy cwrnplay Thy ofTw yevouerny, Chrys. in loc., by whom the force of the verse is well brought out. Com- pare Rom. xiv. 15, where the com- mand of the Apostle rests upon the same momentous consideration: p7 7T@ Bpduarl cov exeivoy amrddAAve trp ov Xpiorbs Grebavey. It is here 8: év (‘cujus causa’); it is there with but a faint shade of difference, irép of (‘in commodum cujus’). On this last mentioned expression, see notes on Gal. ili. 13, and the excellent note of Meyer on Rom. v. 6. 12. ottrws Sé «.t-d.] ‘But thus sinning (with emphasis) against the brethren;’ the 5é, with its sub- explanatory and slightly ratiocina- tive force (see above, ver. 8, and notes on Gal. ii. 4) bringing out the true significance of the act and its sequel, and the oitws fixing attention on the manner specified in the preced- ing verses. Kal TUTTOVTES x-T.A.] ‘and (let me add) wounding their conscience when it is weak ;’ the «at introducing an explanation (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) of the more general auapravoytes, and the appended ac@evotcay keeping the attention fixed on the faet (ac@ev- ovcay is a tertiary predicate ; see Don- alds. Gr. § 489 sq.) that the con- science was all the time weak. On the subject of a weak conscience, and the privileges it may justly claim, see South, Serm. xxtx. Vol. 1. P- 473 sqq. The strong word tir- Torres (TH Eupaoer THS Ac~ews THY a@udtyntTa evdegauevos, Chrysost.) de- signedly marks the amount of the moral injury done to the conscience. It was weak already; the blows given (the participle is in the pre- sent tense) make matters worse, and help soon to destroy all moral sensi- bility. For exx. of this metapho- rical sense of timrw, see Steph. Thesaur. s. ¥. Vol. vu. p. 2592 (ed. Hase and Dindorf). Of those cited the most pertinent seems, Alciph. Ep. 1. 57, S:aBorais tumels 7a Gta: comp. also 1 Sam. i. 8, Prov. xxvi. 28 (LXX). els Xptotov &pap- Tdvete) ‘ye sin against—Christ ;’ the emphasis is resting on the first words, and marking the true nature of what might otherwise have seemed but a venial sin. How little is it recognized in ordinary Christian practice that hurting a weak brother’s conscience is really—‘aperta in Christum contumelia,’ Calv. The three aspects of the sin are well set forth by Chrysost. in loc. 13. Sudarep] ‘ Wherefore, For which very reason ;’ vividly expressed con- clusion both in regard of the con- junction (only here and ch. x. 14), and the metecxnpatiopods eis éavTdy in the personal form of the state- ment. In the pronominal conjunc- tion d:d7ep, the wép gives force and emphasis to the pronominal element (5:5 is simply ‘on which account,’ see notes on Gal. iv. 31: d:dmep is rather ‘on which very account’), and so helps to make the connexion between the cause and the action founded on it as logically close as possible. On the meaning of ep (‘ambitum rei majorem vel quamvis maximum,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. VIII. 42, 23:5 TX, 1. 151 Tov adedPov Ov, Od pur) dyw Kpéa eis TOV aldva, iva pr) TOV adeAddv pov oKavdaiiow. > , ral euciivsotoson © OVK Ett EXeVOepos ; OdK Etwi dmd- IX. > , 3 A 4 , c “ et 4 > oToXos ; ovyxe Inoovvr tov Kupuov nov ewpaka ; ov IX. 1. ov elul eAcdOepos; obn elul awdarodos;}] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority; Rec. interchanges the position of éAe’@epos and aréorodos. Internal arguments (Reiche, Osiander, Hofm.) seem of but little real validity; as good logical reasons can appy. be shown both for the one order and for the other. In what follows, the above-mentioned edd. read simply “Incoty, on equally clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds Xpiordv. 722), see above, notes on ver. 5. od py ddyo x«.7.A.] ‘J will in no wise eat flesh for evermore ;’ the tenor of the passage suggesting the stronger form of translation in the case of the two negatives: see notes on 1 Thess. ivy. 15 (Transl.), and on the general use of od uy} with subj. or future, Winer, Gr. § 56. 3, and notes on Gal. iv. 30. In regard of the use of «pea after the foregoing general form Spaya, the suggestion of Bengel is plausible that the plural kpéa points to ‘totum genus carn- ium;’ it seems, however, more natural to suppose that it refers to the subject-matter, flesh offered to idols, and that the verse is a kind of blending of two sentences, viz. (1) ‘if Bp@ua cravdariCe:, I will eat no Spayua,’ and (2), without any hypothetical portion, ‘I will eat no kpéa, iva uh «.7.A.’: see Hofmann in loc., who, however, does not seem correct in separating ver. 13 from what precedes. It will be ob- served that in the repetition of the words cxavd. toy 45., the order is changed, that the emphasis may fall on the right word. On the sentiment generally, and on the question of accommodation to the weak, see Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part 1. § 135, p- 419, Part m. § 346, p. 342 (Transl.). IX. 1-27. Digressive statement, on the part of the Apostle, of his own freedom (1-3), his own rights, whether in regard of marriage or maintenance (4-18), and his own conduct (19-23), and of the duty of his readers to follow his example (24-27). I. Ovd« ell eAdcv- @epos| ‘Am TI not free?’ scil. inde- pendent, not under the constraint of others,—a free actor in preaching the gospel and acting as may most conduce to its progress. That the éAevGepia had relation to other men, not torules of conduct, seems proved by ver. 19. Of the four questions, the first and second bring out, both on general as well as official grounds, the Apostle’s complete moral inde- pendence, in regard of what he says in ch. viii. 13. The third question emphasizes and substantiates the second; the fourth adds the practi- cal proof that, however it might be in regard of others, he certainly was their Apostle; they were his work in the Lord. ovxt “Incgotv x.7.A.) ‘Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?’ even as the other Apostles saw Him when He appeared to them after His resurrection ; cOmp. ch. xv. 5 sq., where, after recounting these appearances, the Apostle specifies with solemn emphasis, &p6n Kayol (ver. 8). This manifestation of the 152 IIPOS KOPINGIOY2 NPOTH. 2 70 €pyov pov wes €ote ev Kupiw; ei addois > ovK et amooTodos, GAAa ye vu eipi+ H risen, and (in the case of St Paul) ascended, Lord which was vouch- safed, not only on the way to Da- mascus (Acts ix. 17), but in visions (Acts xviii. 9, xxii. 17) and perhaps still more wonderful circumstances (2 Cor. xii. 1 sq.), placed St Paul on a level, in regard of this important particular, with the very Eleven. The deep significance of the words of Ananias, 6 @eds . . . mpoexetpiaatd oe... idety Tov Sikaoy (Acts xxii. 14) was never forgotten. The &p67 kamol was to the Apostle the creden- tial of his apostolate, and, as such, naturally forms a part of passages like the present; comp. Hofm. in loc., who, however, unnecessarily limits the scope of the statement. It will be observed that this question has the stronger form of the nega- tive particle (evxi; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1) prefixed to it, the rest being introduced by the ordinary form. ov Td Epyov k.T.A.] ‘Are not ye (Corinthians) my work in the Lord?’ the living and prac- tical proof of my apostolical relation to you and yours; ‘ ab effectu probat Apostolatum,’ Calv. The ev Kupip marks, as usual, the blessed sphere, in which, as it were, the whole had been done, and outside of which it could never have been done: comp. Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 385, and notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1, al. It is thus to be connected with the whole of the foregoing words; com- pare ch. iv. 15. 2. et GAXotg k.7.A.] ‘ Tf to others I am not an apostle, yet certainly I am to yowu;’ ‘if members of other Churches do not deem me (comp. Winer, Gr. 31. 4. a) to be an apostle, yap you at any rate cannot so regard me;’ abrupt and earnest expansion of the thought called out by the foregoing words. In the aAdAd ye, the aad, in itself definitely anti- thetic, esp. after the preceding hypo- thesis (comp. ch. iv. 15 and notes in loc.), is strengthened by the added yé (‘acuit et intendit’), and a sharper antithesis is thus brought out be- tween the protasis and apodosis ; ‘however it may be with others, yet, at any rate’ (‘at certe,’ Beza), ‘Iam an apostle to you.’ On the use of vé, both in regard of ‘quod mini- mum’ as well as ‘quod maximum,’ see Hermann, Viger, No. 296. }, and comp. notes on ch. iv. 8, vi. 13, In classical Greek words are usually (always,—according to Stallbaum on Plato, Rep. p. 331 8B) intercalated between the two particles; see exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 511. 9. 6, Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 15. On the ei ov in cases like the present, where the emphasis rests on the negative, see Winer, Gr. § 55.2. d, and comp. notes on ch, vii. 9. yap ohpayls «.7.A.] ‘for ye are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord ;’ the év Kupiw, as in ver. I, belonging to the whole clause, and marking the holy sphere in which the Corinthians were the oopayls specified. In oppayts there appears to lie the idea of some- thing that outwardly authenticates ; the Corinthian Church was the exter- nal and visible token of the Apostle’s missionary labour; comp. Rom. iv. 11, where the onmetov mepitopijs is described as a oppayls dikaoodvys. On the use of odpayls in Eccl. writers to denote Christian baptism, see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 1198. TRI dj $35 *4. 153 , A > a c a > , odpayis ov THS atooToAs bets ote ev Kupiv. ‘H €42) aohoyia, Tois €ué avaxpivovaly éeatw 3 Have I not an Apos- tle’s rights, whether 9 auTy. My ov« €xopev eEovaiav 4 in regard of marriage or of being maintained, if I had needed it, by those to whom I minister ? 2. pov Tis aroaroAys) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating ancient authority: Rec., ris euis aroaroAjs. 3. early airy) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority ; Rec., airy éori, 3- “H Qua atrodoyla] ‘my defence:’ emphatic summary of the foregoing, connecting particles being studiously omitted ; apxe? wor +d buérepor Epyov eis waptuplay tay mévwyv, Theodoret. Westcott and Hort. with Chrys., Ambr., al., connect the verse with what follows, and make the slight break at the end of ver. 2. This, however, mars the apparently dis- tinct connexion between ver. 2 and ver. 3 (observe the pouv—éeuy—éexe) and makes the questions which follow, not in sequence to the abrupt questions in ver. 1, but dependent on ver. 3,—of the tenor of which, however, they form by no means pertinent illustrations. Tots éué dvaxplvovoatyv] ‘to them that do examine me,’ scil. tots (nr- odo. wabeiv wédev SjAov bt awdaToAds ejut, Theoph., ‘qui ambigunt de apostolatu meo,’ Beng.; the word avaxp'vev being studiously chosen as a kind of ‘vocabulum forense’ (Beza) to mark the assumptive tone of the Apostle’s opponents : comp. ch. iv. 3, 4, and for distinct exx. of the forensic sense, Luke xxiii. 14, Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xvii. I1, xxiv. 8, xxviii. 18. éoriy atrn) ‘is this’ that I have specified, viz. that you Corinthians are the visible tokens of my apostleship: ef tis Tovs éuols avakpiva: BovAeTat wdvous, buas eis paptup'av Kad@, Theod. It is perhaps slightly doubtful whether airy is the subject or the predicate. The order of the words (contrast John i. 19, xvii. 3) seems slightly in favour of the latter: so appy. Vulg., Syr., Copt., al., but it is proper to observe that the view taken may have been associated with the belief that the pronoun referred to what follows. Whether, however, it be subject or predicate the sense is obviously the same; what the Apostle had stated was his amoaAoyla. He now proceeds to fresh and inde- pendent questions. 4. pt obk Exomev x.7.A.] ‘ Have we no right to eat and to drink?’ So rightly Rev.; the od in cases of this nature belonging to the verb, and the 47 alone expressing the in- terrogation,—‘ we are surely not without the right to eat and to drink, are we?’ comp. Rom. x. 18, 1 Cor. xi. 22. See Winer, Gr. § 57. 3. b, and Kiihner, Gr. § 587. 11, where some exx. are given, illustrating clearly the principle above specified, viz. that the od does not coalesce with the un, but belongs to the verb or to some emphatic word in the sentence. The plural may refer to Barnabas (comp. ver. 6), but, from the general tenor of the passage, seems more probably the ‘classific’ (‘I and such as I’; ‘collegas includens,’ Beng.) or non-personal plural: the ques- tion, however, is contextual rather than grammatical: compare Winer, 154 IPOS KOPINGIOY2 ITMTPOTH. 5 bayetv kat mew; py ovK exopey eLovoiav adehdnv yuvaika Tepidyew, ws Kal ol NouTol amdaToNoL Kal ot 6 adedpol Tod Kupiov Kat Kynfas; 7 povos eyo Kal Gr. § 58. 4. 2. dayeiv Kal meiv] ‘ to eat and to drink,’ viz. what may have been provided by those to whom the message was brought: comp. Luke x. 7, éo@tovres kat mivovres Of this right the Apostle did not avail himself (2 Cor. xi. 9), but nevertheless the étouvaia remained. To refer the words to the subject-matter of the last chapter is clearly out of place. For the time that question is completely dropped. The infinitives belong to the general class of the ‘explanatory’ infinitive see notes on Col. iv.6, 1 Thess. ii. 2), but, from the simple character of the sentence, almost seem to assume the the form of a word in grammatical regimen: see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 44. 1, Kiihner, Gr. § 472. 1. ¢. 5. BI ovK Exowev x.7.A.] ‘ Have weno right to take about a Christian sister as a wife?’ scil. on our mis- sionary journeys (‘secum ducere quoquo quis eat,’ Grot.); and with an implied claim, as husband and wife were one, to be supported by the Churches (Beng.). The translation ‘a Christian woman’ (Est.,Wordsw., comp. Vulg.) is grammatically doubt- ful (yuvatka being in explanatory apposition to the preceding substan- tive), and the reference of the words to ‘mulieres ministrantes,’ such as those who accompanied our blessed Lord (Luke viii. 2, 3; see the pas- sages in Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. 1. p- $810), exegetically improbable. The subsequent mention of St Peter seems here to restrict the meaning of uv as above specified. So dis- tinctly AXth., though in the form of a very loose paraphrase. Ta Tap’ avTay. &s Kal of Aoutrol atrécTOAOL] ‘as also the rest of the Apostles ;’ scil. as was the case with them in the last-mentioned, and foregoing, parti- culars ; the ws probably including a reference to ver. 4 as well as to the clause immediately preceding (comp. Beng.). Though it thus does not follow from the words that all the Apostles were married, it certainly may be inferred from the juxtaposi- tion of clauses that the majority were so. Kal ol &deApoL Tod Kvupiov] ‘and the brethren of the Lord.’ ‘Crescit oratio: nam primum Apostolos nominat, deinde fratres, id est cognatos Domini, pos- tremo Cepham ipsum, principem Apostolici cctus,’ Grot. On the adeApol tod Kuplov (Acts i. 14, Gal. i. 19), see notes on Gal. l.c. The conclusions there arrived at do not seem to be shaken by any criticism that has since appeared. Both in Gal. l.c. and here St Paul appears to be using amdéoroAos in its proper sense, and both here and (very clearly) there, to imply that the adeApol belonged to that company. The subject is confessedly one of great difficulty, and one on which different minds will, to the very end of time, come to different conclu- sions: it may, however, with all fairness be said, that Bishop Light- foot’s criticism (on Gal. Dissert. 11.) of the theory of Jerome, while show- ing Jerome’s ignorance of the two par- ticulars which materially strengthen his theory, does not successfully disprove them. Kal Knodas] Compare Matt. viii. 14. The fact of the Apostle’s marriage is commented as tre. 155 BapvaBas ovk €yomev eLovaoriav pn éepydler Oar ; tis 7 otpareverar idious dywviows ToTé ; Tis puTEever aytre- 6. eEovolay uh epyd(ec@at] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority; Rec. inserts rov before Bh epydcer Oat, on in Clem.-Alex. Strom. vu. p. 736, Euseb. Hist. m1. 30; see also Grabe, Spicil. Patr. 1. p. 330. 6. A pdvos éyo «r.A.] Orl only and Barnabas, have we not the right of forbearing from working ?’ The #, as in ch. vi. 2, 9, al., puts the case on the other side,—‘ Or is it so that we have not the right to do otherwise than work?’ Why St Barnabas is here specially men- tioned is somewhat doubtful. The conjecture of Hofmann is not im- probable,—that, on their first mis- sionary journey (Acts xiii. 3), the two holy men might have agreed together to maintain themselves, and not to be chargeable on any local Church; and that the remembrance of this called up in the mind of St Paul the name of the fellow- labourer with whom he was then associated: comp., Chrys. dv 75« KowwvovvTa avTg Tis axpiBelas Tav- THs, ovK aréxpuvey. The answer of Wordsworth, that the name of St Barnabas was mentioned because St Paul and St Barnabas were specially Apostles to the heathen (Gal. ii. 9), is certainly not sufficient. Bw epydlecbar}] ‘not to work, to forbear working ;’ apyotyres Giv, Kal TpepetOat mapa Tay pabnrevoauevwr, Chrys. The word épyd(eo@a, as Meyer remarks, is the regular word for the manual labour here alluded to: comp. Matth. xxi. 28, and esp. Acts xviii. 3, where the word is used in ref. to the working of the Apostle with Aquila and Priscilla at their common trade of tent-making. For the uses of epyd¢ecOa in the N. T., see Cremer, Wurterb. p. 259 sq. 7. tls orparteverat x.7.A.] ‘Who ever serveth as a soldier at his own charges ? who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof ? or who tendeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?’ Three appropriate examples, viz. of the soldier (2 Cor. x. 3 sq.), the vineyard- planter (comp. Matth. xx. 1), and the shepherd (comp. John x. 12), by which the Apostle vindicates the principle already alluded to, and distinctly enunciated in ver. 14, viz. Tovs Td evayyéAwoy KaTayyéAAovTas The word éyévioy is a word of later Greek (LXX, Polyb., Dionys.-Hal.; comp. Sturz, de Dial. Mac. p. 187) com- monly denoting (a) the rations sup- plied to the soldier () apwpiopevn tpoph, Suidas), and thence, more generally (b) his pay ; comp. Polyb. Hist. vt. 3. 12, dadvov & of megol AauBdvovor Tis Huépas Bvo0 dBodAods, It is used three times elsewhere in the N. T., viz. Luke iii. 14, in the same sense as here, and in a similar but somewhat wider sense, Rom. vi. 23, and 2 Cor. xi. 8. The dative is a sub-instrumental dative; the éyevia are regarded as the means whereby the 1d o7parevec@a: was carried on; see Winer, Gr. 31. 7. d. In the concluding member of the verse the slight change in the con- struction from the object accus. (after éo@lev) to the partitive éK Tov yaAaxtos has probably no studied significance; the kaprds suggests in ek Tov evayyeAlov Civ. 156 TIPOS KOPIN@IOYS IPOTH. a 4 ~ hOva Kal TOV Kapiov avTtov ovk eobia; H Tis TOULALVEL TOLLYNVY Kal EK TOD ydhaKTOs THS ToimYNS > > 4 \ ‘\ ¥ lal lal a 8 otk éoBier; My xara av Opwrrov Tavta Mako; 7H 9 Kal 6 vopos TavTa od héyen; Ev yap TO Mavoews la lal ‘ vonw yéypanrtat OV knudaoes Bovtv dhoovTa. py 7. tov Kaprévy| So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éx tod kaprov. 8. 4 Kal 6 vduos radra ot] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., } odx Kal 6 vduos Tatra. 9g. Knudcets| So Tisch., Treg. [Weste. and Hort, marg.], and on appy. preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm., Rev., Westc. and Hort, pmdoess. itself a kind of partitive idea, which becomes expressed when the more concrete term (yada) appears in the clause that follows. 8. Mi Kata &vOpwmov x.T.A.] ‘Am I speaking these things after the manner of men?’ Transition, by means of a forcible introductory question (kar? épérnow mpoaye TOY Adyov brep emt Tay ahddpa amoroyn- Bévev ylyerat, Chrys.), to scriptural evidence for the principle already laid down; the pf, as usual, ex- pecting a negative answer; see Winer, Gr. § 57. 3. 6b. On the meaning of kara &yOpwmoy (‘as man,’ Syr., ‘bi mannan,’ Goth.: e& avépw- mivwv udvoy mapaderyuarwy, Chrys.), see Fritz. on Rom. iii. 5, and notes on Gal. ili.15. The formula occurs six times in St Paul’s Epp.,—ch. ill. 3, xv. 32, Rom. iii. 5, Gal. i. 11, lii. 15, and in all cases with sub- stantially the same meaning. A Kal 6 vémwos «.7.A.] ‘or saith not also the law these things?’ The #, as in ver. 6, introducing the other conceivable view (viz. that it was on far higher authority), and the ot coalescing with the verb (comp. Winer, Gr. § 57. 3. a.), and suggesting the affirmative answer: ‘Is it I, as a mere man (‘sola hu- mana auctoritate,’ Grot.), that say these things, or saith not the law also (a far higher authority) these things as well?’ ‘non modo non secundum hominem, sed ipsa lege approbante id dico,’ Beng. The assumed general distinction between Aad@ (reference to the outward ex- pression) and Aéyw (reference to the substance and purport) is here appy. preserved; the Apostle says that this was no mere human utterance, but was the substance of the teach- ing of the law: see Rom. iii. 19, where the same distinction may be traced, and compare John viii. 43, but observe that this certainly can- not everywhere be pressed in the N. T.; comp. notes on Col. iv. 3. g. év yap TG Movoéas x.T.A.] ‘For in the law of Moses it ts written :’ scriptural confirmation (not ‘why surely,’ Evans,—a need- less departure from the ordinary meaning of the particle) by an actual quotation of the affirmative answer implied in the question im- mediately preceding. This quota- tion, it will be observed, is specified as coming, not simply, ‘from the law,’ but, with designed emphasis, ‘from the law—of Moses ;’ see Deut. Sx V As ov KnUGaELS ‘thou shalt not muzzle an ox while he treadeth out Botv dAodvra!] ie. Re: A: Po 157 tov Bodv péhe TO Oc@ ; 7) OV Huds mavTws éyer; 10 The argument derived from the less usual word, and the likelihood of con- formation to the LXX seem to turn the scale. The Apostle, quoting from memory, uses a word of similar meaning to that in the LXX, but of a form less familiar to transcribers. the corn;’ imperatival future, on the uses of which see notes on Gal. v. 14. The command (for the de- tails of which, see notes on 1 Tim. vy. 18) was designed to inculcate principles of mercy and considera- tion for the animals that helped man in his labours: they were to enjoy, to a certain extent, the fruit of their toil. Philo (de Humanitate, Vol. m. p. goo, ed. Mang.) speaks of this as an jjpeuoy Kal bnrhy (xpnorhy?) mpdoraiy towards oxen as partners of man’s labours, and as illustrating the benevolence of the Mosaic law. The form «nuéw is found in Xenoph. de Re Equestri, v. 3, in reference to horses, and is appy. not distinguish- able in meaning from gimudw. The substantive «yuds (connected with x4Bos, Schol. Aristoph. Hq. 1147, and perhaps derived from xdw) is described by Hesych. as a mAexrdv ayyeiov ev & AauBdvovort Tas moppipas {purple-fish], and also as what we should term a ‘ nose-bag’ for horses &c.: its more usual meaning, how- ever, is ‘a muzzle’ (rd tots frais ém- 7@éuevov, Suid.; so too Hesych., el5os xaAwod; comp. Psalm xxxi. 9) or means to prevent animals biting or eating: see Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. rv. p. 1516 sq. (ed. Hase and Dind. 2.7) TOV Bodv péAer TS Ocg) ‘Is it for the oxen that God careth?’ scil. in the enactment of this law; brief demonstration of the propriety of the application of the passage to the present subject- matter, by a short elucidation of its real purport ; the 47, as above, and as usual, expecting a negative an- swer. This clause is frequently ex- plained away, but contrary to the plain meaning of the words and the true drift of the passage. The ap- pearance of this command in the law of Moses was not primarily for oxen, but for the moral good of man. God indeed does care for oxen, as for all the creatures of His hand (Matth. vi. 26, x. 29, Luke xii. 24), ovx oftw Se, ws Kal vduov Oeiva imép rovrwy, Chrys. : comp. Theoph. and Hofm. in loc. The question before the Apostle is, In whose in- terest was this law enacted? and the answer plainly is, ovx imép ray GAdywv, GAA’ brép Tay vody Kal Adyov éxévtwy (Philo, cited by Wetst. in loc.) It is the higher and spiritual significance of the precept which the Apostle is here contemplating : * specimen tractandi leges Mosaicas, circa animantia latas,’ Beng. 10. 7 80 Aas wavrag A€yer] ‘Or doth He say it, as He clearly doth, for our sakes?’ the 4 intro- ducing another and alternative view, the first having been inferentially negatived. There is some doubt whether the judas is to be referred to those for whom the law was en- acted (Hofm.), or those who are now specially under consideration,— Christian teachers, robs thy kawhv diabhikny mwaperAnpdéras, Orig. (Cram. Cat.). The latter seems most prob- able, as in better harmony with the clearly implied spiritual applica- tion of the passage, and the use of the pronoun in ver. II, 12. The 158 IIPOS KOPINGIOYS MPOQTH. du Huds yap eypady, ore deter em’ eid. 6 apo- Tpiav apotpiav, kal 6 dho@v ém’ Edrridu TOU peTExew. 10. dpelae ex’ €damld:] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority; Rec., ém’ tamld: opeiaci. én’ eaml(d: tod pweréxew] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., tis éAmldos abtod peréxew en’ eArldi. maytTws (‘utique, Vulg., ‘ notum est,’ Syr.; comp. Luke iv. 23, Acts xviii. 21, xxi. 22, xxviii. 4) adds force and emphasis to the second alternative, Gre gavepoy dv Kal abtdbev dijAov, Chrys.; there could be no doubt that this was the true spiritual re- ference. On the impersonal Aéye1,— which, in passages like the present, where the scope and purport of a a command is under consideration, seems most naturally referred to God, the author of the law,—see notes on Gal. iii. 16. Su’ Aas yap éypddn] ‘for it was for our sakes that it was written ;’ the 5 jas yap being used, not in its explanatory sense (see notes o7 Gal. ii. 6), but, as in ver. 9, in its usual confirmatory sense: ovK obv dv quads... elpnta taira, Origen (Cram. Cat.). The second alterna- tive, by the very structure of the passage, was clearly to be regarded as the true view: this the Apostle confirms by alluding to the purpose that was involved. The whole pas- sage is well brought out by Theodoret in loc.: ov TovTO Aeye tt TGV Body ob peda TH OcG. MéAa yap ate, GAAG 8 Nuas mere’ 8’ Huds yap Kakelvous ednuiovpynoe. Stu Schelde. «.7.A.] ‘to wit that (with the meaning that) the plower ought in hope to plough:’ the é7t marking the true meaning and spiritual significance of the com- mand, and having its explanatory, rather than its causal (‘ because,’ ‘quoniam,’ Calvy.), or mere rela- tival, force (‘ that,’ introducing the substance of the éypdpn); the pur- port of the command (ver. 9), rather than the reason of its being given, being more in harmony with the didactic tone of the context. On this explanatory force of dr, see the excellent remarks of Schmalfeld, Synt. § 168 sq.; the copious list of exx. in Kriiger, Gr. § 550. 3, and comp. notes on ch. iv. 9. Few par- ticles in the N. T. give greater dif- ficulty to the interpreter in settling the exact shade of meaning than ér: (comp. notes on 2 Thess. i. 3), this perhaps being due to its relatival origin, and the consequently wide nature of the possible reference: Kriiger, Sprachl. § 65. 1. 3. The ém’ éAmi&s is emphatic ; it was that on which the dgefAer was based: comp. Rom. viii. 21, Tit. i. 2, and notes im loc. The subject of the hope was obviously, as the next clause shows, participation in the results of the labour. 6 dpotpidv ....6 GAodyv] ‘the sower.... thethresher.’ It has been doubted whether these words are to be taken in their simple, or in their metaphorical, sense; %.e. whether the Apostle is simply stating, in continuation, the practical purpose of the command referred to (comp. Hofm.), or is reverting to that which the quotation is intended to illus- trate. It can hardly be doubted that the 6’ judas éeypapn (consider je Paes os 159 Ei pets tpiv ta mvevpatua eore(paper, péya el 11 Hmets Dav Ta GapKika Oepicoper; Et adAdou THs 12 c A > , , > aA c A > ’ bpav e€ovalas petéxovow, ov paddov ypets; add 12. buadv etovelas] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., efovolas duav. also ver. 10) carries us over into the metaphorical, and that ‘the sower’ and ‘the thresher’ point to the Christian teacher, viewed as either in the earlier or later stages of his spiritual husbandry. So Chrys., Trovtéativ, 5 SiSdoKadros dpelrAcr Trav wévwy Tas auoiBas Exe, Compare also Origen in loc. (Cramer, Caten.), who illustrates the meaning by al- lusion to the work of the Apostle himself; dpotpia MadAos 56 yewpyds K.T.A, Ir. El tpets «.r.r.] ‘Tf we sowed for you’ (dat. commodi) ‘spiri- tual things:’ direct application of the foregoing verse (without any connecting particles) to the Apos- tle’s own case (comp. 7me?s ver. 4), and in continuation of his aroAoyla (ver. 3). The mvevyarixa which the Apostle sowed were the germinal principles (e. g. mlorw, Gicum.) of Gospel teaching, emanating from the Holy Spirit (comp. Aith.), and communicated in words which He vouchsafed to inspire (ch. ii. 13). péya el Hwets K.T-A.] ‘is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things ?’ is it something to be re- garded as unreasonable? comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15: é€vratvéa 7d Sikasoy Selk- Theoph. In the future @eploouev the case is re- garded as future and possibly im- pending: if @eplawuey be adopted (with good (CDFG, al.), but inferior, authority) then the case is put more as depending on the event (‘re- spectum comprehendit experienti«,’ Herm. de Part. &y, m. 7), ‘if we vuot TOU mpdypaTos, Tia should, in the sequel, so act,—a thing quite possible ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 41. e. c, Stallbaum on Plato, Legg. p- 958 p (who has carefully analysed the exact shade of meaning con- veyed by this particle with the subj.), and the exx. in Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 500 sq. The caprixd, it need searcely be said, include the rpopjy (Gcum.), and general ministrations to bodily needs. The studied juxtaposition of the personal pro- nouns in each clause gives force and sharpness, but cannot be expressed in translation. 12. el dAdAov k.7.A.] ‘Tf others partake of this right over you:’ justification of the claim by the ex- ample of others. The suay, though by its position seeming to be a gen. subjecti (comp. Vulg., Copt., Arm.), must, from the whole tenor of the context (comp. ver. 4), as well as from the peculiar character of the governing noun (comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. a), be a gen. objecti, ‘the right exercised over you,’ Syr., Clarom., al. (kpatotow buay, etovoid- (ovow, Chrysost., Theoph.; comp. Theod.): compare Matth. x. 1, éé- ovolay mvevudtwv aKabdptwy, bore ék- BddAew atta: John xvii. 2, ekovciay maons capkés. The meaning, ‘ emin- entia seu abundantia’ (sc. opwm), referred to, but not adopted by, Wolf in loc., though lexically ten- able, is contrary to the whole usage of the word in the N. T., and is in no way required by the context. GA’ éxpnoduweba K.T.A.] ‘nevertheless we used not this right :’ otK 160 IPOS KOPINSIOY> MNPOTH. > > , fn 5 4 4 Ed ‘ , ovk expnoducla TH e€ovoia tavTy, adda TavTa oréyoper, iva py Twa eyKoTny Sapev TO evayyehio 13 Tov XpioTov. 9 ¥ 7 c A ae As , ovK oldaTe OTL OL TA Lepa epyalo- eyxorhy] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., éyxowhy twa, the adda with its full qualifying and contrasting force (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 2) marking the different course which the Apostle had adopted in the past from what he might have adopted if he had thought proper. When placed, as here, at the beginning of a sentence or clause (no negative having preceded), the particle includes all shades of con- trast from simple qualification of what has preceded to complete cor- rection (Gal. iv. 17) of it: see Kiihner, Gr. § 535. 3. In the next clause the aAAa@ is in its usual an- tithesis to a preceding negative. It thus seems better to place a comma after ta’ty than the usual colon. mravra oréyowev] ‘bear all things ;’ ‘sustinemus,’ Vulg.; ‘sufferimus,’ Clarom.; and so Syr., Copt. (‘long- animes sumus in’), Aith., al. The verb oréyew only occurs four times in the N. T., viz. ch. xiii. 7, 1 Thess. ili. 1, 5, and this present passage. In all it has the later and deriva- tive meaning of bropevew, Baoracew (Hesych.), and marks the patient and enduring spirit (comp. Copt.) with which the Apostle put up with all the consequences naturally re- sulting from the otk expnoduecba K.T.A.1 Ady aivirrerat Kal orevo- xwplay morAAny Kal Ta UAAa wayra, Chrys. The transition in meaning from tegere to continere (HKurip. Electr. 1124), and thence to the later meaning sustinere, is easy and natural; compare Polyb. His¢. m1. 53- 2, oréyew riy emipopay tay Bap- Bdpwy, xvi. 8. 4, oréyew Thy Tihs pdrayyos epodov: see Wetstein in loc., and notes on 1 Thess. iii. 1. On the derivation (Sanscr. sthag ; comp. Lat. tegere), see Curtius, Gr. Etym. No. 55, p. 170 (ed. 2), Fick, Worterb. p. 209. éyxomryv K-T-A.] ‘that we may not cause any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ;’ scil. by incurring the suspicion in any form (odx &rAws eykoThy, GAN eykorny twa, Chrys.) of self-seeking, or of preaching and teaching with an eye to remunera- tion: ‘expeditiores plus operis faci- unt et minus sumptuum afferunt,’ Beng. Ignatius, somewhat similarly, thanked God that no one could say, br. eBapnod Tiva ev miKpe 7 ev meydr. Philad. cap 6. The word eykor) (evedpov, eumddiov, Hesych.) is only used in this place in the N. T., but is found in Galen, and in later writers. Properly it denotes ‘imcisionem, et eam quidem que fit in vid,’ Grimm; and this may be either in the way of aid (as in the quotation in Suidas, xwpls éykowady kal KAmaKThpwv ovK Hy emiBihvar TIS meTpas), OY, aS commonly, in the way of hindrance; avaBorAhy eumojoat. Chrys. 13. ovK otSare] ‘ Know ye not?’ Proof of the Apostle’s general prin- ciple by an appeal to the rule of the old covenant, and (ver. 14) to the sanction that rule received in the similar didrayua of our Lord. The ov« ofSare gives a kind of re- iterative emphasis to what the Apostle has already said, and brings > tva “ TLva IX, 13. YA 161 = ae map © A 5 , c “A , fEvol TA EK TOV Lepod EaMiovaw, ot TO OvoLtactnpio mapedpevovtes TO Ovovactypivy cuppepilovrar ; ovrws Kal 6 Kupios Sduera&ev tots 7d evayyéuov 14 13. Ta ex Tov iepov) So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- derating authority: Lachm. and Rec. omit td. rapedpevovres| So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderat- ing authority: Rec., tporedpevovtes. personally home to the Corinthians their unfairness, ‘ quod patiebantur Christi ministris obtrectari in re tam licita,’ Calv. in loc. ot Ta lepa épyafépevor] ‘ Those that are engaged about sacred things ;’ with full inclusiveness, Levites as well as priests, but without any particular classification (contrast Chrys., Theoph., who refer this clause to the Levites and the fol- lowing to the priests), as the broad fact that all who ministered in res sacre (scarcely ‘in sacrario oper- antur,’ Vulg.; so too Syr., Copt.) had their share in the gifts and offerings, is all that the Apostle is here pressing. Work in what be- longed to God received its appro- priate wages; and so too work in regard of that which furthered man’s access to God: see Hofm. in loc. Ta x TOD Lepod éa8lovoryv} ‘eat of the things that come out of the temple ;’ with ob- viously exclusive reference to the Jewish ritual. The definiteness of the expression, independently of other considerations, is enough to show that the Apostle was not thinking of heathen practice. On the details of the ek rod fepod eadiev, see Numbers xviii. 8 sqq. ol TO Bvotacrnpiy tapeSpevovres] ‘they who wait upon the altar, or serve at the altar;’ ‘qui altari adstant [‘ assident’],’ Calv.; second clause, defining more exactly the general expression that had preceded. The distinction between this verb and mpocedpevew (Rec.) appears to be very slight. Both are used in good writers, and both convey the idea of close attendance on any- thing: comp. Athen. vit. p. 283 c, of rais Knrelais mapedpevovres, and still more appositely, Protev. Jac. p. 264, mapedpedw rG vag (cited by Hase in Steph. Thesaur. s. v.). The more general term mpovexew is found in the exactly similar passage, Heb. Vii. 13, ov5els mpooéoxnkey TG bucia- ornply. — -tG Ovoractnply oupwepllLovrar] ‘share with the altar ;’ ‘cum altari participantur,’ Vulg.,—scil. in the offerings made thereon: Kad@s 7d cuumepiCov: Ta bev yap Kal dAdKavta eyivero, kad iy Kévov Tov Ovotacrnplov: Kal ek Tov Ovomévwv Bt Td wey alua mpocexeiro 7@ OuvotactTnply, kal TO oréap COuuiaro * Tov Se Kpedy apaipeud tt eAduBaverv 6 fepeds- ofov tov détiov Bpaxlova kal rd ornOiviovy Kal rd evvorpoy, (cum. 14. ottws kal 6 Kuptos x.7.A.] ‘Thus did also the Lord appoint ;’ scil. in accordance with the prin- ciples already referred to. The as- censive kal (‘ita et Dominus,’ Vulg.) adduces and emphasizes the con- firmation given to the general prin- ciple by our blessed Lord; abrod yap ott pwvh* ‘ukws yap 6 épyarns THS Tpopis avTod éotw,’ Theod.: see Matth. x. 10, Luke x. 7. The pro- minence of the kal 6 Kvpios precludes the reference of the clause to God. M 162 IIPOS KOPINGIOYS IIPOTH. 15 Karayyé\hovow €k TOU evayyehiou Cyr. éyd Sé od , > ‘ 4 > y \ lal Y Kexpnua ovoevi TovTwv. Ovk éypaa S€ radra wa 5] , ‘ lal oUTws ‘yevnTa ev EOL, KaAOV yap jor paddov azo- 15. ov Kéxpnua ovdert] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., oddevt éxpnodunr. In the concluding clause, oddels Kevdoer (Rec., iva tis kevdon) is adopted in all the above-mentioned edd. on less decided, but still clearly preponderating, authority The point of the whole is that the law was confirmed by Him who came to fulfil the law, and to set forth its fullest significance ; delx- yuot bE TG voum cuvvwda Kal TOV Aeo- métny mpooretaxéra, Theod. (Cram. Cat.) ék Tov evayyeAtov trv] ‘to live of the Gospel;’ scil. ‘out of the preaching of it,’ ‘ex eo quod evangelium predicant,’ Beza: explanatory or objective infinitive (Donalds. Gr. § 585), specifying the substance of the didtayua; see the numerous exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 473. It is thus better in translation to maintain the simple infinitive (‘ or- dinavit . . . de evangelio vivere,’ Vulg.) there being here no latent detv (comp. Auth.), but a simple order and mapayyeAla; comp. Matth. x. 5. Foran example (Themistius, Orat. 23) of the sufficiently intel- ligible (jv éx, see Kypke in loc. (Vol. I. p. 214): and for exx. of the similar and more familiar ¢jv ard, see Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. tv. p. 11 (ed. Hase). I5. éy® 8 «.7.A.] ‘But I have used none of these things;’ scil. of the éfovoiav-giving arguments and principles just above specified in four forms (gaye kal meiy, ver. 4; wn epydlerOa, ver. 6; 7a capkine Gepifew, ver. 11; €k Tod eday>€ALov Gav, ver. 14), and here gathered up in the generalizing neuter tara. Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., al., make the rovrwy refer to the mapaderyud- twy (the soldier, the husbandman, &c.) already cited, but less probably, as less inclusively. Meyer, resting on verse 12, refers it to the preceding efovcia understood in some sort of distributive sense,—a sense which Hofm. not unreasonably character- izes as ‘schlechterdings unméglich.’ In ver. 12, the Apostle practically says the same thing, but there, as the context shows, mainly with ref. tothe O. T. Here he refers to the N. T. dispensation as well as to that of the O. T., and uses a tense (con- trast éxpynoduny, ver. 12), which carries his practice down to the very hour when he is writing. The ordinary punctuation (Rec., Treq., al.) places only a colon at todrwy, but thus misses what seems to be the intention of the clause, viz. to close the subject of the course adopted by the Apostle, and to prepare for the change of subject that follows. Oix éypada S$ tatra] ‘Now I write not’ (epistolary aorist) ‘ these things,’ viz. the particulars specified from ver. 4 onward. The Apostle now meets an objection that might be urged, passing onward, by the 5¢€ of transition (ueTaBarikdv), to his present subject-matter. tva ottwes yévnrar év enol] ‘that it should (hereafter) be so done in my case; ’ i.e.‘ that henceforth I should be supported by you and others (iva AauBdvw, Theoph.), and avail myself of my ministerial privilege.’ The ev, Tx es, 2G. 163 Lal a ‘ , , > ‘ , 8 ‘ Oaveiv } 7d Kavdynud pov ovddels Kevdoe. eav yap 16 edayyedilopat, ovk EoTL MOL Kavynpa, avdyKn yap fou Emikertau* oval yap pol €oTw eav pi) edayyedi- 16. oval ydp) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., oda) dé. as usual, marks the sphere or sub- stratum in which, or on which, the action is conceived to take place ; not ‘unto me,’ Auth., but ‘in me,’ Vulg.: comp. Matth. xvii. 14, éol- noay év avrg, and Gal. 1. 24, éddt- aCov év éuol rdv Gedy, and see notes in loc. Kaddv yap pou paAAov arobavetv] ‘for it were better (far) for me to die;’ the em- phasis resting on the prominently placed xaddy, and thus suggesting the use of the more strong form of comparison ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 349° 3- 3, where the principle of this usage is explained. The aroéaveiy, it need hardly be said, has no refer- ence to a death by hunger (S:ap@ap- jivat Aug, Theoph.), but is simply an earnest and impassioned form of disavowal : Spa ued’ Sons cpodpérnros Gpvetrat Kal Siakplverar 7d mpayya, Chrys. AR TO Kavxnpa pov «.t.A.] ‘than that anyone should make void my glorying,’— more exactly, ‘my subject or matter of glorying,’ viz. ‘ that I preached the Gospel without cost; ’ comp. ver. 18. The construction is here very diffi- cult to explain grammatically. To take } as equivalent to ‘alioquin’ (Meyer), seems absolutely impossible if we recognize a periphrasis of the comparative: # thus nearly associ- ated with muaAAov must retain its usual sense when in such a colloca- tion. It seems almost equally diffi- cult either to accept the punctuation of Lachmann (amro@avetv, } 7d Kat- xnua: obdels Kevéce:.), or to suppose that after # the Apostle abruptly stops (comp. Westc. and Hort), and then proceeds in a new and direct sentence. Such exx. have only been found in conditional sentences (comp. Rom. ix. 22,—according to some interpreters), where the reader al- most naturally supplies the omitted thought. It remains therefore only to translate as above (sim. Rev.), and to understand a tva as mentally to be supplied, and the ovdels as in- volving an idiomatically redundant negative, exx. of which will be found in Kiihner, Gr. § 516. 6. A diffi. culty still remains in the future kevéoet, which here seems unusually out of place, as tending to make the mental insertion of tva more difficult. All that can be said is, that this use of a future after tva does seem fully established in the N. T. (see below, notes on ver. 18), and that,—in a sen- tence like the present, marked with some passionateness of utterance,— it might have been almost uncon- sciously introduced. Direct nega- tion was latent in the Apostle’s thought. 16. éav yap «.7.A.] ‘For if I should preach the Gospel I have no glorying,’—or, as above, ‘no subject or matter of glorying :’ confirmation of the strong asseveration in ver. 15. It was needful for the Apostle thus urgently to maintain his present position of independence, for it was on this alone that the validity of the kavxnua depended: preaching the Gospel did not per se involve any kavxnua ; ok tori kabynua 7d eday- yeAlCerOai, GAA Td Gdawdyws Knpic- ge, Theoph. avayKn yap por émlkertar) ‘ for necessity M2 164 TIPO KOPIN@GIOYS TPOTH. lal /, 17 copa. €l yap EKwv TOvTO Tpdoow, picbov eyo’ et > 18 6€ axwv, oikovoplay metioTevpar. Tis ovY por eoTW is laid wpon me:’ confirmatory explanation of the preceding clause. It was not a matter of free choice, but of duty to a Master; comp. Acts ix. 15, Xili. 2, xxii. 21, and see Estius in loc. oval ydp pot éortv) ‘ for woe is it to me;’ again a yap confirming, or rather elucida- ting, what has just been said. In this third case the particle has more of its explanatory element: if there was this avdyxn, it must verily needs be that there was a woe to him if he sought to withdraw himself from the duty. On the mixed argumentative and explanatory use of the particle, see notes on I Thess. il. 1, and on Gal. iv. 22; and on the more purely explanatory, notes on Gal. ii.6. In this clause the change to the aor. subj. evayyeAtowuar (good authorities, but not preponderating, support the present) seems intentional, ‘if I shall not have preached :’ the thought of the Apostle glances from the present to that future which in 2 Tim. iv. 7 is contemplated as having then begun to merge into the past. 17. el yap éxov «.7.A.] ‘ For if this willingly I have areward;’ elucidation (‘si enim,’ Vulg.; not ‘nam si,’ Clarom.; comp. Hand, Tursell. Vol. 1. p. 374 sq., with Vol. Iv. p. 1 sq.) of the clause immediately preceding by means of a dilemma purely hypothetical (ei, see notes on Gal. 1. 9), but well calculated to bring out the véduos Seomorikds (Theod.) under which he was acting ; see Reuss in loc. ‘It is verily woe to me; for take either view,—If it is a free-will acting (which is really not my case), I have a reward, and to miss this would indeed be ovat; if, on the other hand, it is not a free- will acting (which really is my case —for I am a srnperns [ch. iv. 1], and appointed to this work by Christ), then a stewardship is com- mitted to me, and if an oixdvouos be not found faithful (ch. iv. 2), then, still more, would it be oval.’ The general sentiment of the passage is thus clearly brought out: the Apostle has no kavxnua in regard of his preaching the Gospel; for there is an oval for him if he does it not; drov 5& 7d oval mapdkerrar eay ph moth, ovk &xer kavxnua, Orig. To make this verse elucidatory of the ovK €oTt wor Kavxnua of the fore- going verse (Hofm.; so too perhaps Clarom.; see above), dissociates the tovro from the evayyeAtowuat, to which it seems clearly to refer, and breaks the continuity of the clauses, each one of which appears to be confirmed or elucidated (yap) by the clause which follows. el d&kov] ‘but if unwillingly;’ i.e. without free will entering into the matter: the Apostle was not reluct- ant, but was under the command of a gracious Master; 7d éxwy kal &xwy em rod eykexeipicba Kat uh eyKexeip- ig@at AauBavwy, Chrys. olKxo- voptay memlorevpar] ‘ I have been entrusted with a stewardship ;’ have been made an oikovduos of the mys- teries of God (Rom. iv. 1, comp. Acts xx. 24), and so do but act as every oikovéuos ought to act, as imedOuvos dy trois éemraxetot, Chrys.; comp. Luke xvii. 10. There is here no fallacy in morals (Wordsw.). The Apostle was a dovAos, but he was one who nevertheless did what he bade others do,— é« Wuxis épyaCerPat (Col. iil. 23, Eph. vi. 7). His service, though by his call é& avdéy«ns, was, . i. le ae gs 165 6 purbds ; wa edayyedclopevos addravov Ojow 76 . a evayyé\uov, eis TO py KataxpyoacIa TH eLovoig 18. evdayyéAov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rod Xpiotod. not the less, wer’ edvolas (Eph. vi. 7). On this form of the accusative, see Winer, Gr. 32. 5, and comp. Rom. lii. 2, Gal. ii. 7, 1 Thess. ii. 4, Tit. i. 3. Inall such cases the accusative serves as the defining object, and may not improperly be called (as suggested by Rumpel, Casuslehre, p- 157 sq.) the ‘paratactic accusa- tive’; see the large collection of exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 6. 18. tis ody pour éotrly 6 picbds] ‘what then is the reward that comes to me?’ ‘If, by what has just been said, I really am only one to whom an oikovouia has been en- trusted, and so bound to fulfil it without any question of uic@ds, what is the reward (if any) which falls to my lot?’ The next clause supplies the answer, which in effect is—‘ to receive no reward’ (Wetst.), and so to have the power of making the xavxnua. This does not confuse the picbds and the Kavxnua (as urged by Hofm.): the katxnua was that he preached the Gospel free of cost; the picOds, that, by refusing all pic8ds, he could speak as he did to the elders of Ephesus, Acts xx. 33, 34. So nearly, but not quite exactly, Origen (Cramer, Cat.), otros otv éorw 6 wicbds’ Iva brov ekovclay exw, So in effect Chryso- stom. The reading is not perfectly certain. Treg. adopts the gen. nov on good uncial authority ; the preponderance, however, seems slightly in favour of the dative. iva evayyeAtlépevos x.7.Ar. ‘that in preaching the Gospel’ (temporal ph Troinow, participle) ‘ I may make the Gospel without charge;’ the iva here, as often in the N. T., marking the sort of purposive result that was involved in the whole matter. In such cases the primary force of the particle is not wholly lost (see Buttm. Gramm. N. T. p. 204); the idea of purpose shades off into that of eventuality, and the final sentence merges into the objective; see notes on ch. iv. 2 and on 1 Thess. ii. 16, v. 4, and comp. Abt on 1 John i. 9. Meyer, for the sake of preserving the fuller force of the particle, supposes that the question implies, and involves, a negative answer, and that the iva depends on it. The above interpretation, how- ever, is simpler, and, it is believed, more consistent with those traces of later usage which are certainly to be observed in the N. T. in the usage of this particle. On the use of iva with the future see above on ver. 15, and on Gal. ii. 4. It is probable that the idea of duration, or (as in the case of drws with a fut.), perhaps rather of isswe and sequence (‘suc- ceed in making the Gospel, &c.’), is thus more distinctly suggested to the reader: see exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 553- 4. d, and Winer, Gr. § 41. b. 5 elg Td pT KaTa- xpyoacbar «.7.A.] ‘that I use not to the full my power (privilege) in the Gospel,’ i.e. in preaching the Gospel,—in its sphere or its area of propagation; general direction and aim of the dddamavoy ridévat K.7.A.; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, and notes on 1 Thess. ii. 11. In cases like the 166 19 pov ev TO evayyedio. . /, lal fepos yap dv €k TavTwr TacW Epav- preached, that, if possible, I might save them. present the idea of direct purpose is a little obscured, but not enough to justify any translation implying mere result, or (still more improb- ably) mere reference (‘in respect of my not making &c.,’ Evans) to the action implied by the verb. Without being at all hypercritical we may thus generally distinguish between three usages of the infini- tive, in sentences similar to the pre- sent, which we meet with not un- commonly in the N. T.,—7red with the infinitive; éo7re with the infini- tive; and eis 7d (or mpds 7d) with the infinitive. Of these, the first seems clearly to mark design or intention ; comp. Luke xxiv. 29, and see notes on Gal. ili. 10 and Winer, Gr. § 44. 4. b.; the second, plainly result or consequence; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. m1. p. 771, and notes on Gal. ii. 13; the third, primarily purpose, but still, not unfrequently as here, a shade of meaning that seems to lie between purpose and result, and even sometimes to approximate to the latter; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 12, and comp. Winer, G7. § 44. 6. Lastly, to complete this summary, it may be noticed that this primary meaning of eis rd with the infin. may be differentiated from that of mpos TO with the infin. by observing that in the former the purpose is regarded more as immediate, in the latter more as ultimate; see notes on Eph. iv. 12, and on Tit. i. 1. On kataxpacbat, see notes on ch. vii. 31. 19. "EXeUBepos yap Ov ex rdav- tov] ‘ For being free (now, and per- manently, Winer, Gr. § 45. 2. b) of all men ;’ appended (16 mAgov A€yet, IIPOS KOPINGIOY> TTPOTH. ’ , Though thus free, I Ehev- conformed myself to the circumstances of those to whom I Theoph.) confirmatory explanation (y4p; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 1) of the general attitude of non-depend- ence on others which was specified in the preceding verses: the very avoidance of using his egovcta enabled him, without risk of imputation of interested motives, to subordinate himself. We have thus, not a con- firmation of the clause immediately preceding (Meyer), nor a reply to a latent imputation,—that his inde- pendence was designed to make his authority more felt (Hofm.), nor, yet again, any enhancement, by way of contrast, of what he had stated as to his independence (Chrys. ; od pdvoy ovx tAaBov—GardA& Kal éd0vAwoa,—a view clearly incompatible with the yap), but an implied statement of the true rationale of the independent attitude which was the subject of the kavdxnua. It thus seems desirable to separate the verse slightly from the foregoing (Westc. and Hort; observe the initial capital in Tisch.), and to regard it as an appended and eluci- datory statement; comp. Reuss in loc. It glances, as Beza rightly observes, at the ov« eiu) eAcdOepos (ver. I.) with which the chapter opens, and shows what was true éAevdepia. The connexion of éAev@epos with é« only occurs here: amd is the more usual (Rom. vii. 3; comp. vi. 18, 22, viii. 2, 21), and the more correct, form, as importing no idea of inner con- nexion (ek): but merely pointing generally to those referred to as a body from which the subject stood free ; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 430 (introductory comment), Harrison, Gr. Prep. s. v. €k, p- 239. ” tva IX. 19, 20. 167 Tov édoviwoa, va Tovs Telovas KEpdjow. Kal 20 > , a ? , c > a 9 > , eyevouny Tors Iovdators ws "Iovdatos, iva ‘Iovdatovs Kepdyow' Tos Yrd vopmov ws UT vopor, p17) Ov 20. wh dy aitds bxd vduov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority : Rec. omits the clause. Tovs TAclovas KepSrjcou] ‘in order that I might gain’ (i.e., in effect, * save,’ ver. 22) ‘the more;’ definite statement of the purpose of the 7d éavrdvy SovAGoat,—hence the fuller translation. The mAcloves do not imply ‘quam plurimi’ (Est., Beng., Wordsw.),—a very doubtful inter- pretation, but simply ‘the greater number’ of those with whom the Apostle came into relation, the mdytas above alluded to; see exx. of the article in such expressions, in Kiihner, Gr. § 465. 11. For similar instances of this use of Kepdalvew, see Matth. xviii. 15, 1 Pet. iii. 1, in both of which passages the fuller Christian meaning (‘lucrifit enim quod ser- vatur,’ Grot.) is to be distinctly re- cognized. 20. kal éyevéunv k.T.A.] ‘ And (to give special illustrations) I became to the Jews as a Jew;’ the nat here appending to the general statement of ver. 19 some special examples. On this use of kal, see notes on Pil. iv. 12, and comp. Eph. v. 18, and notes in loc. Examples of this form of the 7d éavrdy SovAGou are specified by St Luke in his notices of the circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3), and of St Paul’s ac- quiescence in regard of the request made to him by the elders at Jeru- salem (Acts xxi. 26); comp. Acts xviii. 18. Tots bd voor] ‘to them that are under the law ;’ not, ‘under law,’ with reference to law as a general principle (Gifford, Introd. to Rom. p. 47), which would be plainly alien to this passage, but with reference to the Mosaic law (Est.), as suggested by the preceding clause (Jews), and by the contrasted clause in ver. 21 (Gentiles). Jewsand Gentiles appear to be the two broad classes in the Apostle’s mind; between which to intercalate an ‘under law’ (Noachian or other- wise; comp. Beng.) class, seems at variance with the broad and simple tenor of the passage. The Greek expositors, whose judgment on such a matter must be allowed to have great weight, though differing in details, are unanimous in referring the vdéues to the Mosaic law: so appy- also Copt., which inserts the definite article. The tots b7d véuor, is, however, more than a mere émethynais Tod mporépov (Chrys.), as it would naturally include all that were bound by the Mosaic law, whether dwelling in Judea or else- where (Hofm.), and so gives to the foregoing term “Iovdato its widest significance,—Jews, viewed not merely in their strictly national, but in their religious, aspect. On the occasional reference of the anar- throus véuos to the Mosaic Law, see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 433, and comp. notes on Gal. ii. 19. #7 Sv atros bd vépnov] ‘not being myself under the law;’ adrés, in contrast to those who were so. The Apostle had died to the Mosaic law, that he might the more fully live to Christ; see Gal. ii. 19. The clanse appears added, not to meet the ob- 468: | TIPOS ‘KOPINGIOTS “IPE T a: - i,’ c 2 , 7 ‘\ e ‘ , , a 21 autos v7To VOJLOV, LWA TOUS VITO VOJLOV Keponow* TOLS 5. , ec »” \ a »” AL? a AVOLOLS WS GVOLOS, LN) WV avowos Mcov add’ Evvomos 22 Xpicrov, va Kepddvw Tos avopmous* eyevouny Tots aobevéow aabevns, wa Tors aobevets Kepdjow’ ZY. T@EOD elas vw a Xpiorod] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec.,@eg@..... Xpiore. In the concluding clause the reading nepddvw (Westc. and Hort, kepdava) is adopted in all the above-mentioned edd. on authority very nearly as con- clusive: Rec., kepd5qjow,—a very natural alteration to conform with vy. 19 and 20. Tovs also is prefixed before ayduous in all the same edd. on very clearly preponderating authority : Rec. omits the article. 22. aobevnjs| So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderant jections of any opponents, but simply out of that depth of feeling on this subject which, probably not very long before, had found expression in the Epistle to the Galatians ; comp. Gal. v. 4 sqq. 21. Tots dvépotg oS AvoLos] ‘to themthatare without law, as with- out law ;’ %.e. to the heathen, as one of themselves, in the mode of address and in the tenor of arguments, as, to some extent, at Lystra (Acts xiv. 15 sq.), at Athens (Acts xvii.; see Origen in Cram. Cat.), appy., in some degree, before Felix (Acts xxiv. 25), and, not improbably, in addresses to heathens who, from time to time, came in contact with him in Rome (Acts xxviii. 30; comp. Phil. i. 13). The term &vouo has here no ethical tinge, but simply stands in opposi- tion to the rots id vouoy in ver. 20, and includes all who were not bound by the Mosaic law: avduous Aéyet Tovs &€&w moAtTevouevovs Tod vduou, Theod.; comp. Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. 1. p. 366, Cremer, Wéorterb. p. 436, and a very pertinent quotation in Add. to Esth. iv. 12, euicnoa ddfav avéuwv Kal BdeAvooouon Koitny amepi- TUATwY Kal mavTOS GAAOTpiov, 1 Sv «.7.A.] ‘not being without law in regard of God, but under law in regard of Christ;’ explanatory of the true meaning and extent of the dvouia which the Apostle here alluded to: he was &vouos, yet &- vouwos. The genitives fall under the - general category of the gen. of rela- tion (see Donalds. Gr. § 453. cc), and the more specific idea of de- pendence on ; see the numerous exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 421.4: the Apostle was not without law in his de- pendence on God, but under law in his dependence on Christ. The meaning with datives (Rec.) would practically be very little different, though the cases are fundamentally opposed (Donalds. Gr. § 455): the idea of dependence would, however, have been lost in the more vague notion of mere reference; comp. Winer, Gr. § 31. 6. tva KepSdvw Ttovs avdép.] ‘in order that I might gain them that are without law.’ If we here adopt the accentuation of the text, cepdavw will be the 1 aor. conj. of the older form of aorist éxépSava (Lobeck, Phryn. p- 740): if that of Westc. and Hort. (see above, critical note), it will be the future. The former seems more likely, but it is impossible to decide positively either way. 22. éyevéunv Tois daabeveoiv aaGevis] ‘L became weak to the weak. 'The whole tenor of the latter TX. a4; 22) 23. 169 A 9 , % Tols Taw yéyova TaVTA, Wa TAYTWS Tas THCw. lal + mavta S€ Tow Sua Td edayyéduoy, Wa TvyKOWwrds 23 ancient authority; the internal arguments being also on the same side: Rec. prefixes as; Lachm. includes it in brackets. The 74 before mdvra (Rec.) is rejected by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly pre- ponderating authority. 23. mdvyra) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., rodro, half of chap. viii. serves to define the meaning of do@evjs, as ao0evav tH miores (Rom. xiv. 1; comp. ib. xv. I, 1 Thess. v. 14), weak and scrupulous in matters relating to Christian practice; see notes on 1 Thess. l. c., and compare Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 546, Cremer, Worterbuch, p. 529. To such the Apostle became ao8evjs; he viewed matters as from their standpoint, sympathized with their difficulties, and gave his advice accordingly. Origen (Cram. Cat.) cites in illus- tration the advice given in ch. vii. 2, 11, and other and similar pas- sages. To such the term xepdjow is legitimately applicable. Treated without consideration they might become alienated and antagonized, and at last be verily driven into the sad company of the aroAAvuevor: con- sider ch. viii. 11, Rom. xiv. 15. Tots wac.v K.t.A.] ‘to all men have I become all things;’ the article with mdyres specifying the all with whom he had come in contact, and the perfect yéyova designedly marking the enduring nature of the principle on which he acted. To these mdvres he was always ready to be mdyra, i. e. ‘ omnium moribus et affectibus quantwm licet se accom- modare,’ Est. It was no _ indif- ferentism, no compliance with pre- vailing prejudices, but a spiritually wise sympathy that guided the Apostle in all his varied relations to those with whom for the time he had to do: see Neander in lLoc., whose comments on this clause are just and suggestive. tva tdvrws tivags cdow] ‘that by all means I may save some:’ by every manner that from time to time might be available; ‘omni quovis modo,’ Grimm. The meaning ‘uti- que,’ ‘profecto’ (comp. Chrys., De Wette) is lexically admissible, but less in harmony with the tenor of the context. It will be observed that in thus closing the noble ut- terance the Apostle passes from the kepdhow of preceding clauses to the definite and unmistakeable céow of the present : comp. Calv. in loc. 23. wdavra Sé tod x.7.A.] ‘ But all things Ido for the Gospel’s sake ;’ closing statement by means of the partially adjunctive and partially contrastive 6¢€, the primary con- trastive force of the particle (see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2) being trace- able in the implied statement, that not only in reference to what was specified, but in all matters there was only one principle of action,— 51a 7d evaryyeAvoy : ‘ hactenus ostendit Apostolus, tanto studio se laborasse in Evangelio propter aliorum salu- tem: nune declarat se id faciendo etiam suam ipsius salutem spectasse,’ Estius; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p- 361 sq., and comp. notes on ch. viii. 8. ‘propter Evangelium,’ Vulg., a preg- It was 51a 7d ebvayyéAcov, 170 24 avTov yéevopa. IPOS KOPINOSIOY> Ovx oldare Ott TMPOTH. Run, as men run for a prize; andas I do, os yh , 4, » 4 @ be Ol €v OTA0LM TPEXOVTES TAVTES MEV TPEXOVT, Els SE , ‘\ Aa Y 4 id 25 NapBaver To BpaBetov; ovtws TpéxeTE, Wa KaTa- nant expression more fully explained in the following clause. iva ovyKowvwvds «.T.A.] ‘in order that I may be a fellow partaker thereof (with others) :’ explanatory statement of the preceding words. The Apostle was thus doing all things that he might become a sharer with others (‘obv et yiyvouat magnam habent modestiam,’ Beng.) in the Gospel and the salvation that was proclaimed in it; 6 yap rod eday- yerlov oxdros Tov avOpérwy 7 cwTnpia, Theodoret. This was the SpaBetov to which he alludes in the following verse. The Sia 1d evayyéAoy has thus no reference to spreading the Gospel, but to sharing in its bless- ings: ‘participem evangelii fieri est ejus fructum percipere,’ Calv. 24. OvdK otSare x.7.A.] ‘ Know ye not that they which run in a course run all;’ exhortation sug- gested by the last clause of the pre- ceding verse, and by the remem- brance of the great purpose that must needs animate all action: the possibility of running and not ob- taining (compare ver. 27) naturally emerges from what has been said, and gives a terse solemnity to the exhortation ; mAnkTiKéTepoy avrots diargyera, Theoph. The allusion (see Phil. iii. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 7) is obviously (év oradiw tpéxev, oré- gavos, ver. 25) to the games, and, as the circumstances of the case in- dicate, most probably to the Isthmian games, which, as we know, were con- tinued after the fall of Corinth (Pausan. Hist. 1. 2; comp. Suet. Nero, § 24); but it is no more than an allusion, and necessitates no pressing of details, e.g. in ref. to the ordd.ov, which is more prominent in connexion with the Olympian games, or in ref. to the orépavos (ver. 25), which, although equally ¢@aprés (whether a wreath of wild olive or of pine), was different at the Olympia and the Isthmia. For a description of the ordé:oy (in length 203 yards), see Winer, Real-Worterbuch, s. v. ‘Stadium,’ and Smith, Dict. of Antigq. p- 1055 (ed. 2). ets 8 AapBdver to BpaBPetov] ‘ but one receiveth the prize:’ state- ment (from the known facts of the case) designed to enhance the warn- ing which follows. The SpaBeiov (as in Phil. iii. 14) is the prize given to the victor,—in the case of the Isthmian victor, a pine-wreath, in the case of the Christian, (#% aidvios, 1 Tim. vi. 12. The derivation of the word is uncertain; see notes on Phil. iii. 14. Whatever be its deriva- tion, ‘bravo’ (Wordsw., comp. Ed- wards) is not etymologically con- nected with it, the basis of our word ‘brave’ being almost certainly of Celtic origin ; see Skeat, Htym. Dict. B. ¥sps 75. xeTe K.7.A.] ‘so run, in order that ye may attain ;’ scil., ‘run as the successful competitor runs, in order that &c.,’ the tva haying its regular and proper force, and not (as Beza, al.) to be regarded as a mere equivalent of écre. Such a usage is probably only once (Rev. xiii. 13) certainly to be found in the N. T.; see Winer, Gr. § 53.9.6. On this text see a sound practical sermon by Frank, Serm. xxvit. Vol. 1. p. 432 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.), seealso, on the former portion, ii , ovTwS TPE- IX. 24, 25, 26. 11 hd Byte. Tas S€ 6 dywrildpevos Tavta eyKpateverat, RPL) \ > 7 \ , , éxeivor pev ovv wa dbapriv orépavov haBwou, c “ 2 ete! ¢ 9 , c > jets 5€ adbOaptov. ey Toivuy ovtws TpEXw ws OVK 26 Newman, Paroch. Serm. Vol. v. p. 289 sqq. 25. mwas 8 6 dyovildpevos] ‘ But every man that striveth in the games :’ statement, in the form of a slightly antithetical specification, of the condition to which every competitor must conform. The par- ticiple with the article is here equi- valent to a substantive (Winer, Gr. § 45. 7), but has this advantage that it presents to the reader more dis- tinctly the procedure, the element of time not being wholly obliter- ated. mavTa éyKpatreveTar] ‘is temperate in all things ;’ the adyra being the appended accusative defining the object to which the rd éyxpatrevec@ar extends: see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4. 1, notes on Phil. 1. 6, and on the general principle of this structure, Kiihner, Gr. § 410. I. This accusative is sometimes termed the accus. of ‘the remoter object’ (see notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5), some- times the accus. of the quantita- tive (see notes on Phil. iii. 8), or of the qualitative object (Hartung, Casus, p. 55, 61, notes on Gal. vi. 6), according to the tenor of the word or the context, but is in every place referrible to the same principle of the accusative supplying the complementary notion or the explanatory adjunct which is re- quired for fully understanding the predication; see Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 6, and the full and instructive com- ments of Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 161 sqq. The probable origin of the construction is stated in notes on Tim. vi. 5. «-7.A.] ‘ they verily (i.e. the competi- tors wn the games), in order that éxetvor piv otv they may receive a corruptible crown, but we (Christians) an incorrupt- ible ;’ the verb being mentally sup- plied from the preceding éyxpared- erat, the wey being antithetical to the succeeding 5¢, and so dropped in translation, and the ody, with its usual retrospective reference (Don- alds. Gr. § 548. 31), continuing and concluding the subject and the con- trast: comp. Phil. ii. 23, and on the associated particles, see Moulton’s note to Winer, Gr. $52. 8) and comp. notes on ch: vi. 4. It thus seems best with Tisch., and Westc. and Hort, to place only a comma after éeyxpareverai, and not, as in Auth., to break the verse into two semi-independent sentences. On the verse, see Frank, Serm. xxvii. Vol. 11. p- 1 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.), and on this and the two following verses, Mill, Univ. Serm. xxu. p. 422 sqq. 26. éya trolvuv x.t-A.] ‘I then so run as not uncertainly :’ conse- quent and concluding statement of the principle on which the Apostle (eva is emphatic), in accordance with what he had already said, himself regularly acted; the rolyuy, with its usual modified inferential force (see Kiihner, Gr. § 545. 4, Hartung, Partik. Vol. u. p. 348), marking the consequent nature of the action adopted, the reason why he acted in the manner subsequently mentioned ; see Hofm. in loc. The particle oc- curs only in two other passages, Luke xx. 25, and Heb. xiii. 13, and in both (according to the best text) at the beginning of the clause—a position which it hardly ever occu- pies in classical writers ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 342. It always marks a 172 TIPO KOPINSIOY> TIPOTH. 27 adynws, ovTws TuUKTEVM ws OK dépa Sépwvr GAN bromialo ov TO THua Kal Sovlaywyo, pH TwS adNots KnpvEas avTos AOdKiLOS yevwpan. weak and, so to say, transitory form of conclusion, and thus stands in contrast with the stronger and more prominently placed rolyap: see esp. Biumlein, Partik. p. 251 sq. In the & 5 otk &8%Aws the as answers to the preceding éurws and marks the mode or the aspects under which the tpéxev took place (comp. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 333, and notes on Eph. v. 22, and on Col. iii. 4), while the ov« adjdrAws (scil. rpéxwv) defines more exactly. There was no want of clearness in course or direc- tion; the Apostle kata oKdmoy ediw- kev (Phil. iii. 14), and with no un- certain or unsteady step (‘non quasi in incertum,’ Vulg., Goth.,; sim. Arm.); he knew whither and in whose presence he was running the great race of eternal life. The Syr. (‘in aliquid quod ignotum sit’), Copt. (‘non ad opus’), lose the full force of the graphic a57Aws: the Aith., as only too often, gives a short and unsatis- factory paraphrase. &s odk aépa Sépwy] ‘as not smuting the air ;’ the ov« being closely bound up with the words that follow, and, as always with participles in the N. T., nega- tiving distinctly and emphatically the predication of the verb so that the ovk Gépa Sépwy becomes a sort of concrete predicate; see Winer, Gr. § 55.5.8. The ‘non quasi aerem verberans ’ of the Vulgate (compare Auth.) thus misses the exact force of the sharply enunciated ‘ut non aerem c#dens’ (Beza), which is conyeyed by the original. Some of the patristic commentators see in the words a tacit reference to the devil,—é€xw yap dv mAntw, Touvtéoti, tov 5idBodroy (Chrys., Theoph.), but miss the true idea, viz. that it is the capa (THs capKds, Col. ii. 11; Comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 24) against which the Apostle directs his blows. These blows were not struck against the empty air, but, as the next clause shows, fell firmly on their object. The idea of a oxktauaxia (Beng., Wordsw., al.) is thus alien to the context: the Apostle is describing not ‘que certamini serio premitter- entur’ (Beng.), but the ‘certamen’ itself. 27. GAN tromidlo pov Td cSpa! ‘but’ (in contrast with the two preceding negative clauses) ‘I bruise my body,’ ‘contundo corpus meum,’ Beza; bruise it black and blue (‘lividum facio,’ Clarom.), each blow striking it. The word, as the derivation indicates (i7d, ap), pro- perly means making, by blows, livid marks under the eyes (Arist. Rhet. m1. 11, Plutarch, Mor. p. 921 F), and thence, generally, anywhere on the body. It thence passes natur- ally into a metaphorical meaning ; see Luke xviii. 5, and comp. Ari- stoph. Paz, 541, TéAcis brwmacpevat. The word is fully discussed and illustrated in Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. Il. p. 1400 sq. Some later mss, (see authorities in Tisch.) read trom- id(w, but the reading, though adyo- cated by Hofm., is rightly rejected by all the best critical editors. Kal SovArAaywyd] ‘and lead it off as a bond-slave;’ as a victor, who having conquered his adversary, leads him off asacaptiveandaslave: comp. Diodor. Hist. xtt. 24, mpos Tov a&pxovta SovaA- aywyeiv. The completeness of the IA. a7. Take warning from our fathers in the wil- b. Hat F 173 Ov b\w yap duds dyvoeiv, aWehgoi, X. (ret: tke Neer OTLOL TATEpES NUM@Y TaVvTEs VO THY VeE- but yet be trustful. 1. yap} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating evidence: Rec., 5é¢. subjugation of the ‘flesh with its affections and lusts’ is well marked by this emphatic word. On this text see Frank, Serm. xxv. Vol. 1. p- 397 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.), and on the subject of Christian discipline gen- erally, Harless, Chr. Eth. § 44. c, p 359 sqq. (Transl.), Rothe, Theol. Eth. §873, Vol. m. p. 470 sqq. (ed. 2). Ly twas GAAos Knpvéas x.7-A.] ‘lest by any means, after having been a herald to others, I myself might be rejected,’—‘ having declared the conditions and nature of the mighty contest by Christian preaching;’ the verb retaining its primary meaning conformably with the whole foregoing illustration, but also implying the particular means by which the Christian herald per- formed his great duty. De Wette suggests that if the metaphor had been intended to be maintained the Apostle would have rather written Khpv— yevouevos. Possibly; but, in the midst of words so appropriate and pertinent, it seems unlikely that all the primary force of the word is to be obliterated. In the serious words that close the verse, addéximos seems to be also, to some extent, a ‘vocabulum agonisticum’ (Beng.); not so much ‘reprobus,’ Vulg., as ‘ rejectaneus,’ Beza, al., ‘ uskusans,’ [reprobatus] Goth.,—rejected, sc. as unworthy of the crown and the prize. The doctrinal deduction thus becomes, to some extent, modi- fied; still the serious fact remains that the Apostle had before him the possibility of losing that which he was daily preaching to others. As yet he counted not himself to have attained (Phil. iii. 12); that blessed assurance was for the closing period of a faithful life (2 Tim. iv. 7): comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 235, p- 398 sq. (Transl.), and Chr. Eth. Part m. § 166, p. 403 sq. (Transl.). X. 1-13. Warning, with closing encouragement, against the sins com- mitted by their forefathers in the wilderness. I. Ov yap «.7.A.] ‘For I would not have you ignorant, brethren;’ solemn confirmation (yap) of the foregoing implied exhortation to self-discipline and self-denial by examples taken from the early history of the Jewish nation. T he _formula_oi 6¢dw (or PG Aci G€Aomuer) Gyvoeiv, occurs six times ine St Paul’s Epp. (Rom. i. 13, Xi. 255. 1 Cor. xii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8, I These, iv 13), and in all marks the introdue- tion of a subject of importance: what followed was something that was not to be overlooked or ignored. ol tatépes HwGv] ‘ owr fathers ;’ x i.e. ‘our forefathers in the wilder- ness,’—not with any reference to spiritual descent, or to the idea of the Christian Church being a con- tinuation of the Jewish (Alf.), but simply with a national reference, many—though not the majority— of those addressed, being of Jewish descent; comp. Rom. iv. 1, where the juév is similarly used, and, as far as numbers were concerned, still more appropriately. On the number of the Jews in all parts of the world, see Philo, de Legat. Vol. 1. p. 586 (ed. Mangey). 174 IIPOS KOPINSIOY> TIPOTH. 2 hédyv noav Kal ravtes dua THS Oaddoons SipOov, Kat martes eis TOV Mwvonv €Barticavto ev TH vepedy Kat a ‘ , na 3 & TH Oaddooy, Kat TavTes 70 aT Bpapa mrvevpati- 2. ¢Barticavto] So Rec., Treg. (with marg.), Rev., Weste. and Hort (with marg.),—still only on the authority of B, some later mss., the great body of mss., and Ff:—Lachm., Tisch., €Bartic@ncav. Internal evidence, however, so clearly favours the more difficult reading ¢Samrricayro, of which €Barric@noay would be a very natural correction, that we seem justified in the retention of Rec. advreg bd THY vedeAnv Foav] ‘were all under the cloud,’ scil. the known cloud (Exodus xiii. 21, xiv. 19) which was the seat of the guiding presence of Jehovah among His covenant people: comp. Psalm ey. 39. The host that followed the mystic cloud may readily be con- ceived as to a great extent under its surface (td): see Numb. x. 34 (Alex.), h vepearn eyevero oKidovoa em avtois jepas, and comp. Wisdom xix. 7, qh Thy mwapeuBorAhy cxidCovoa vepean. All (five times repeated), enjoyed the mercies and privileges mentioned in this and the following verses; but not with all, nay, not with the greater portion of them, was God well pleased (ver. 5). 2. eig TOV Movory éBatticay- ro] ‘received baptism unto Moses ;’ the middle verb here having its not unusual causative sense (Donalds. Gr. § 432. 1. cc, Kiihner, Gr. § 374. 7); compare Gal. v. 3, vi. 13. It may be observed, however, that in later Greek the difference between the aor. middle, and the aor. passive, is, in cases such as the present, practically scarcely appreciable: see Kiihner, Gr. § 377. 4. c. obs. The strong and significant Bamri(ecOa eis (see Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii. 27, and comp. Matth. xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, I Cor.i. 13, 15, al.) marks the sort of close spiritual union between Moses and the people: he was their peoirns (Gal. iii. 19), and the leader appointed by God (mpwrocrdrns, Gicum.) in whom they believed: see Exod. xiv. 13. On the meaning of the formula, see notes on Gal. iii. 27, and comp. Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 127. vepérAn Kal év TH Bardaon] ‘in the cloud and in the sea.’ They passed through the latter, and were under (67d) and overshadowed by the former, so that the sea and the cloud, each, materially as well as locally (the cloud was, as it were, diffused and suspended water; comp. Gen. i. 7, Job. xxvi. 8, contrast Jude 12), were the element in which their typical baptism took place. To regard the vedeAn as symbolizing the Holy Spirit (Theodoret, Maier) seems in- consistent with the simple and broad character of the passage. Moreover, the cloud-baptism took place first (see Exod. xiii. 21),—an inversion of the doctrinal order (John iii. 5), which, in a passage of this nature, would pro- bably have been avoided, if the vepéAn was intended by the Apostle here to symbolize the Spirit. Observe, too, the repetition of the prep., which en- hances the difficulty. For a sermon on this verse, see Lightfoot, Works, Vol. v1. p. 412 sqq. (ed. Pitman). 3. Td advTd Boda TvevLAaTLKSy] ‘ the same spiritual food ;’ the sub- év TH Peay ai 4. 175 ws te \ , ee <.. ¥ Kov payor, Kal mavTes TO adTO TVEYPATLKOY ELOY 4 A , Tropa erwov yap eK TVEvpLaTLKAS aKohovbovons 4. 70 adtd mvevuatindy %rov bua) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Weste. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., Rev., 7d abtd méua mvevmatixdy emo. This latter reading would be symmetrical in order with the former clause, but is, for that very reason, open to suspicion. In the last clause the preponderance is in favour of the text (so Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort): Rec., Rev., 4 5& wérpa. stantive and adjective coalescing, as it were, to form one compound idea,—‘ the same food, and it was spiritual food :’ see Winer, Gr. § 20. I. a, and comp. Gal. 1. 4, and notes in loc. The spiritual food referred to was, it need hardly be said, that which typified one part of the other sacrament (comp. John vi. 31, 32),— the manna (Exod. xvi. 14, 15), which, though not the true apros é« tov ovpavod (John vi. 32), very distinctly typified it by its supernatural origin and character. The read- ing is somewhat doubtful: 7d aird, though bracketted by Westc. and Hort, is supported by an amount of external evidence that cannot be set aside; but the order of the three following words is more open to doubt. Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, adopt the order mvevp. Bpaua épayov (Lachm., mv. ép. Bpdua, with wholly insufficient authority) on good and, externally considered, perhaps slightly preponderant, authority : the strong likelihood, however, of cor- rection, on account of grammatical reasons, seems just to turn the scale in favour of the text (Rec., Rev.). 4. To atrd «.7.A.] ‘the same spiritual drink ;’ as at Rephidim, when the rock in Horeb was smitten (Exod. xvii. 6; comp. Numb. xx. 2 sqq.), and the waters came forth so abundantly that both the congrega- tion and their cattle drank of it. That the aorist érov here means ‘they drank throughout,’ i.e. from end to end of their wanderings (Evans) cannot be correctly main- tained. The tense simply implies ‘quod preeteriit, sed ita ut non de- finiatur quam late pateat id quod actum est,’ Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17: see the valuable remarks of Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 3, 6, and comp. notes on Gal. v. 24. émuvov yap k.t.A.] ‘for they drank from a spiritual rock accompanying them ;’ semi-parenthetical confirmation of the preceding clause by a statement of the actual circumstances ; it was verily spiritual drink, for it came from a spiritual rock, and that rock followed them. The imperf. émwvov marks, with its usual descriptive force, what those referred to did on their journey (see Kiihner, Gr. § 383. 2, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 55), the tertiary predicate dxoAovdotans (Donalds. Gr. § 492) just noting an additional circumstance which makes the passage more intelligible. The exact meaning of the whole clause is, however, doubtful. That there was an old tradition among the Jews that a mysterious well, ‘sicut petra, sicut alveus apum, et globosus’ (Bammidbar, R. S. 1, cited by Wetst.), accompanied the children of Israel during the forty years of their wanderings,—appears to be certain (see the quotations in Lightfoot, Schéttgen, and Wetst.) : but it may be reasonably doubted 176 IIPOS KOPINSIOYS TIPOTH. 5 metpas, y Tétpa S€ Hv 6 Xpiotds’ add ovK €v Tots theloow adtav nvddKnoew 6 OEds, KateaTpHOnoav 6 yap &v TH Epyuo. Tatra d€ TU7r01 Hav éye- 6. nvddcnoev] So Lachm., Treg., Westc. and Hort, with AB'C and a few cursives: Rec., Tisch., evddnnoev. whether St Paul is here referring to the tradition, there being nothing whatever in the words to make such a reference by any means the cer- tainty it is deemed by Alf., al. The prominent word throughout is mvev- patixéds: the food was spiritual, and so too was the drink, for the rock out of which it came (whether at Rephidim or Kadesh,—if the oc- currences were really different,—or elsewhere) was no earthly rock, but a spiritual rock, a manifestation, on each occasion, of the spiritual and wonder-working presence of Christ, who, as the Adyos &capkos, thus vouchsafed to accompany and to help His people: comp. Wisdom x. 15, and see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. cap.I. 11. It was thus the know- ledge of the mystery, viz. that the yet unrevealed and not yet incar- nate Word was ever present in the Church of the wilderness, and not a grotesque Rabbinical tradition, that suggested to the Apostle this illustration of the spiritual nature of the wéua of the Israelites. The Bpaua spoke for itself: comp. Psalm Ixxvlii. 24, 25. * 5€ wétpa k.t.A.] ‘and the rock’ (the rvevyarinh mwéetpa here spoken of) ‘was Christ ;’ was verily identical with Christ, as the manifestation of His wonder- working presence. So in effect Phot. (Cram. Cat.), though somewhat ob- literating the idea of actual identity ; aicOnrh wey iv % méerpa SnAovdte TO vdwp Tots “IopanAirais avaBAvcaca.’ GAN’ ovxl TH oikela ice TodTO eBAvogev, GAAa TH Suvdwer THs Kat’ evépyeiay mapovons avTH mvevwarinis métpas Kal akoAovbovons TH xpela TaY duwévrwy. The streams of the spiritual rock were to the Israelites what the spiritual food of the pre- cious blood of Christ is to Christians. In each case we recognize the mys- tery of a Real Presence: ‘ vere prwe- sens erat’ (scil. petra spiritualis), Beng.; see Calvin in loc. On this and the preceding verse, see a dis- course by Mede, Works, Vol. 1. p. 325 sqq. (Lond. 1664). 5: GAN odK év Tots TAclootv k.t.A.] ‘ Howbeit, with the greater part of them God was not well pleased ;’ the adda with its proper adversative force (‘aliud jam hoe esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 2) calling atten- tion to the sad truth, that though all had these mercies vouchsafed to them, the greater part, nay verily all save two, had incurred God’s displeasure, had received them in vain. Long-continued murmurings called forth at last the solemn sen- tence, ‘Ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I lifted up my hand that I would make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun... as for you, your carcases shall fall in this wilderness,’ Numb. Xiv. 30, 32 (Rev.). KatTeotpéOnoayv yap] ‘for they were overtivown ;’ not merely ‘cecider- unt,’ Syr., but ‘prostrati sunt,’ Vulg., Copt.,: their overthrow (by death) was the judicial act of God; see Numbers xiv. 16, katéotpwoev x 550, li7 vyOnoav, eis TS pur) evar Huas emOupyTas Kakav, (Heb. ‘mactavit’) adrods év ri eph- fy, and comp. Job xii. 23, kararrpwy- viwy vn. The word occurs both in earlier (Herod. vir. 53, xaré- oTpwyto wdyTes, IX. 26, KaTéoTpwvTo of BdpBapo:), and later Greek (2 Mace. v. 26, xi. II, xii. 28, al.), the original meaning of ‘ prostration’ or ‘ over- throw’ (from which there is no need here to depart) often passing into the general meaning of ‘slaying’ or ‘destroying;’ comp. AZlian, Hist. Anim. Vil. 2, Aomds ... abro’s Karé- otpwoe, and Xenoph. Cyrop. m1. 3.64, oi Mepoa . . . moAdods Katectpdvvu- cav. Inthe latest Greek the word is found in the technical meaning of ‘entering in a public document;’ see Ducang. Gloss. s.v. For a dis- course on this verse, see Mede, Works, Vol 1. p. 338 sqq. (Lond. 1664). 6. Tatra 82 «.7.A.] ‘ Now these things’ (‘ beneficia que populus ac- cepit ; et peccata que idem admisit,’ Beng.) ‘were our examples ;’ not ‘examples of us,’ ‘figures of us,’ Wordsw. (‘in figura facta sunt nostri,’ Vulg.), ‘so that we are the aytirv- mot,” Meyer, but— were (or became) examples for us,’ Arm.; ‘figura nobis erant,’ Syr., Copt. (see the expansion in Aith.), the general history involving a typical signifi- cance. The judy is thus a gen. of the object rather than of the sub- ject (pds judas, Orig.), i.e. ‘types or examples to guide us:’ see Winer, Gr. 30. I.a, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 454. aa. The former inter- pretation is grammatically tenable (comp. Rom. v. 14), and appears in the margin of Rev., but it almost necessitates the awkwardness of re- garding tadra as an accus. of refer- ence, whereas the position of the pronoun is clearly one of emphasis. If taira be retained as the nomi- native, the awkwardness is even greater: events would then be re- garded as in typical relation to per- sons. That the t’mwo: were of a monitory character, naturally follows from the statement in ver. 5, which, as it were, prepares the reader for the subsequent details: 7a zap’ éxelvous yevoueva ev tdker TUmwy 5U- varat tas Theodorus, The verb is plural, not only by the principle of attraction (Kiihner, Gr. § 369. 3), but in recognition of the different details into which the tadTa was to be expanded. In ver. I1 the details are, as it were, again collected together in the raira, and verbs singular follow. In regard of meaning, it may be remarked that éyevj8noay is passive only in form: see Thomas Mag. p. 189, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 108 sq., and notes on Eph. iii. 7, and on Col. iv. 7. The form is a later and Doric form. els Td wy eTvat! ‘to the intent that we should nat be:’ purpose involved in these typical and monitory dispensations. The circumstances of the past did not only admit of an application to the Church of the present, but in- volved it teleologically ; see Hofm. in loc., and for details of this appli- cation (sometimes fanciful) made by early writers, the notes and cita- tions of Wordsw. in loc. émiOupntas KaKxdv| ‘ lusters after evil things, as they also lusted,)— scil. in their various desires after evil things,—not exclusively in the particular case mentioned, Numb. xi. 4; the correlating «al marking that the Corinthians would be like them if they so lusted: each N madevery, 178 7 xabas KaKeivor ereOvunoar. IPOS KOPINGIOYS IIPOTH. pede eidwhoddrpar ., A yierbe, Kabds TwWEes avTav' woTEp yéeypamTaL > , ¢€ ‘ ig ‘ A be Se Exdbicey 6 dads dayew Kat metv, Kal dvéotnoar , Lal 8 mailew. pd mopvevoper, Kabos tives adtav erdp- 4. éamep] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, with clearly preponderating authority: Rec., as. The form ety (&, wiv) is adopted by Tisch., Westc. and Hort, on good, but appy. not preponderating, authority. party would alike be émi@uunral: comp. notes on 1 Thess. ii. 19. The kad disappears in the corresponding clauses in the verses that follow; and quite naturally. The present verse is general; ‘fundamentum malorum concupiscentia,’ Beng.: the succeeding verses deal with the varied exemplifications of the evil principle. To iterate the kal (Rec. inserts the particle in vv. 9, 10) would make the verses monotonous, and add nothing to the force of the statements. The general principle then being laid down, the Apostle proceeds to specify. To desire still to continue usages (ch. viii. 1 sq.) which practically involved a dis- tinct contact with the heathenism of the past is the first and worst instance of such an emOupla. 7. unde eLSoroddtrpar ylvecbe] ‘neither become idolaters;’ trans- ition into the imperatival form, the pndé, as Hofm. rightly observes, pre- serving its connexion with the u7 in the preceding verse, and indicating that though the em@upety is there probably general in its scope, the particular instance of Numb. xi. 4 was present in the Apostle’s thoughts. The strong term eiSwAoAdrpa: is used as marking quietly but distinctly the danger they incurred in having any contact with eidwAdéura or feasts in the cidwActov (ch. viii. 10) : jpéua Tovs Ta €idwAdbuTa eo@Olovras aivitrerat, Chrys. (Cram. Cat.). The payet kal meciv of the citation makes the sig- nificance of the warning perfectly clear. The passage referred to is Exod. xxxii. 6, where the festival is described that was held the day after the altar had been built before the golden calf. It is quoted exactly as in the LXX. mwatkev] ‘to sport;’ to take part in sports, probably in honour of the image (Theoph., Calv.), after the festival ; dancing (not necessarily ‘lasciva saltatio,’ Beng.) forming, as we know it did in this case (Exod. xxxii. 19), a prominent part. There is no reason for thinking that it here includes any reference to the sin specified in the following verse (comp. Wordsw.). That aifew may have that mean- ing depends on the context; neither maifew nor pny necessarily involves it. All that is here implied is prob- ably what is expressed by Chrys. (Cram. Cat.); xopovs orhoaytes reph Tov pwbaxov, EmaiCov xopevovTes Eu- mpocdev avTov. 8. pnde tmropvetopev] ‘ neither let us commit fornication ;’ asecond form of émdupuia kaxk@yv, often found in connexion with idolatry, but, as the Epistle implies (comp. ch. v. 1 sqq., vi. 13 sqq.), and ancient history plainly specifies (comp. Strabo, Geogr. vit. 6. 20), long connected with the city of Corinth. Bengel calls attention to the change of person. In ver. 7 and 10 the second person is adopted ; in the first case, the nature of the X. 7, 8, 9. 179 vevoay, Kal ETETay Ld HEPA EtKooL TpEts YLLAdEs. pnde exrreipalapev tov Kvpuov, cafés twes adtav 9 8. trecay] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., Rev., trecov, The omission of the év before sud jépa is adopted in all the above-mentioned edd. on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., év mid juépa. 9. Kipwr] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., Xpioréy, The same edd. omit «al before . twes on authority still more preponderant. Some slight doubt might be felt in regard of amdAdAvvro (Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort); but as the external authority is good, and as it would be far less likely to be a correc- tion of aréAovro (Rec., Lachm.) than vice versd, the less usual ardéAAvyTo is to be preferred. sin specified seems to preclude the Apostle, even under the form of epistolary comity, there grouping himself with those whom he was addressing; in the second case, he is condemning a sin which seems to have clung to the Church of Corinth (comp. Clem.-Rom. Cor. cap. 3), and probably showed itself in ref. to himself. In each case there is an instinctive propriety which led to the almost unconsciously made change: ‘utrumque decore,’ Beng. elxoot tpets}] The number specified in the Old Testament (and so also in Philo, Josephus, and Rabbinical writers) ‘of those that died in the plague’ was 24,000 (Numb. xxv. 9). The slight discrepancy has been accounted for in various ways, all more or less artificial—_some inter- preters pressing the mid judpa as contrasted with the total duration of the plague, others supposing that the exact number (as known by tradition) was really midway between the two round numbers, and that in the O. T. the higher, and by St Paul the lower, round number was used. Common sense seems to suggest, that the Apostle was citing from memory, and, as the exact number was of no moment, did not deem it necessary to refer to the original narrative. QQ. pndé eéxtetpdlopev rdv Kuprov] ‘neither let ws tempt the Lord ;’ scil. God, as evinced by the passage subsequently referred to, Numb. xxi. 4 sqq.; comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 18, 19. The stronger form ékzeip- a¢ew (in classical Greek éxmepac@a) is found in three other passages in the N. T., Matth. iv. 7, Luke iv. 12 (from Deut. vi. 16), and Luke x. 25, in all of which the prep. appears to add emphasis and to mark the determined nature of the act. The meaning here and in Matth. iv. 7 and iv. 12 is rightly expressed by Grimm (Lew. s. v.) as ‘patientiam vel ultricem potestatem explorare.’ It was a sin of mingled unbelief, impatience, and presumptuousness, emanating from the evil heart of man; éferelpacay toy @edy ev rais Kapdiais ai’taéy, Psalm Ixxvii. 18 (LXX); comp. Mark vii. 21. What peculiar manifestation of the sin is here in the Apostle’s thoughts has been variously stated both by earlier and later commentators. It seems, however, natural to think that he is including all forms of sin prevalent at Corinth that might be deemed N2 180 IIPO2 KOPINOIOY2 ITPOTH. i 10 émeipacav, Kal bTd Tov Opewy amdddvvTO. pydE yoyyvlere, Kabdrep Twes avTav eydyyvoay, Kat II am ovto wrd TOU doOpevTod. Tadta dé TUTUKdS 10. xaOdmep] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on strong internal as well as good external evidence, the tendency to correct by conforming to the xa@ws in the five preceding verses being obviously great: xa0dés, Lachm., Rec. The omission of ral before tives is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority. II. tadra 5€] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on good external authority. Internal considerations are also of weight, the addition of mdyra (Rec.) being so much more easily accounted for than its omission. In what follows, tumixas is adopted in the edd. above specified for tvmot (Rec.) on very clearly preponderating authority. There is more doubt about ovveBauvev (Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort), as it may have been a gramma- tical correction of the plural cvvéBatvov (Lachm., Rev., Rec.). On the other hand, the plural may have been a conformation to ver. 6. The external authority preponderates in favour of the singular. Lastly, for karjv- tnxev (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort), the evidence is clearly preponderant: Rec., carjvtnoev. more especially to involve presump- tuousness and wearying out of God’s patience (comp. esp. Isaiah vii. 13, where ‘wearying God’ stands in connexion with tempting Him; ‘est enim tentatio patientie contraria,’ Calv.), and that he is not pointing to any particular form of the sin. If we are to draw our inference solely from the ka@ws «.7.A., then the sin would seem to be a longing for the sensual gratifications of their old heathen life, and a desire to shake off the restraints of Christianity. To regard the sin as pointing to a desire for signs (871 wept onuclwy eudxovTo, Chrys.), or presumptuous use of the gift of tongues (Theodoret), seems in no degree hinted at in the con- text. érre(pacay | ‘ tempted ;’ ab- solutely ; so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm. ; see Winer, Gr. § 22. 1. Aith., Meyer, De Wette, al., supply airéy. The word clearly can be used absolutely, as is shown by the term 6 meipd(wy, Matth. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iii. 5, and by instances such as Hom. Odyss. rx. 281, ds paro wepacwy, ewe 5’ od Adbev eiddTa ToAAd. The reading etere(paca (Tisch., Lachm.; Weste. and Hort in margin) has good ex- ternal support, but strong internal evidence against it. tard tav dheov amdAAVVTO] ‘ perished by the serpents;’ scil. those men- tioned in the well-known narrative, Numb. xxi. 6. The imperfect marks the past event in its then course and accomplishment, and, as it were, brings the scene more fully before us; see Kiihner, Gr. § 383.2, Donalds. Gr. § 426. aa. On the use of éiméd with neuter verbs of which the meaning can receive a passive turn (mdoxew, Matth. xvii. 12, 1 Thess. ii. Cor. xi. 24), see Winer, Gr. § 47.5. v. ind. The power which produces death is regarded as actively efficient. 10. pndé yoyyslere] ‘ neither murnvur ;’ manifest a froward and discontented spirit, commonly with 14, TAnyas AauBavew, 2 mm, 10, ¥f: 181 , > * pS > , \ ‘ , ovveBawev exelvois, eypddy Sé mpds vovleciav HOV, Eis ODS TA TEAN TOV aldvery KaTHYTHKEY. an associated prepositional clause (xard, Matth. xx. 11, pds, Luke v. 30, wepi, John vi. 41, 61, vii. 32) marking against whom the yoyyucuds was directed. Here, as the reference to the O. T. is clearly to Numb. xvi. 41 (no violent death being associated with any other instance of murmur- ing), the object of the yoyyvouds would seem to be, perhaps in the first place, St Paul and those asso- ciated with him (see notes on ver. 8), just as Moses and Aaron are the objects in Numb. J. c.,—but also, as the word is studiedly left absolute, with a further and deeper reference to Him whose servants Paul and his associates really were—to God: comp. ver. 22, Exod. xvi. 7, and see notes on Phil. ii. 14, where this word is briefly discussed. td Tov dd00pevTod] ‘ by the destroyer ;’ scil. the destroying angel, definitely mentioned in 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, I Chron. xxi. 15, and named gener- ally as 6 dA08pedwv, Exod. xii. 23, Heb. xi. 28. The form ddAoépetw is Alexandrian, and is of not un- common occurrence in later writers of that class: comp. Steph. Thesaur. s. v., Schleusner, Lex. Vet. Test. s. v. II. Tatra 8 x.7.A.] ‘now these things happened unto them by way of figure ;’ these events specified in the five preceding verses. The earlier events in the history of God’s people had a typical character in relation to the historical circum- stances of Christianity; €v éxelvots yap Ta Nuérepa cuveypddero, Theod. See esp. Martensen, Clu. Dogm.§ 123, p- 233 (Transl.). The imperfect cur- €Bavev marks the sequence of the events in the unfolding of the his- tory: see notes on ver. 9. eéypadn 8} ‘and they were written ;’ the 5¢, in accordance with its com- mon use in Greek, adding, with a faint sub-antithetical force, a new statement to what had preceded ; not only did they take place, but they were also recorded: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. mu. p. 361, and comp. notes on Gal. ii. 20. awpos vovdeotay *pav] ‘for the admoni- tion of us ;’ ‘ad commonendos nos,’ Tertull. (Marc. v. 7). The events were recorded with the general purpose (the mpds marking ‘ ethical direction towards ;’ see notes om Col. iv. 5) of supplying monitory teaching to us Christians, by re- minding us, first, how the relations of Israel to the world at large do truly prefigure the present attitude of Christianity, and so were recorded for our learning (see Hofm. in loc.) ; and, further and in detail, how each sin was followed by its chastisement, and that, as it was then, so will it eyer be: ‘ut lis lectis vel auditis sapiamus, ne similiter peccantes similia patiamur,’ Estius. On the later form vov@ecla (for vovbérnais), see reff. in notes on Eph. vi. 4. els obs Ta TEAN K.T.A.] ‘ unto whom the ends of the ages are come down’ (‘ devenerunt,’ Vulg.) ; and to whom, consequently, the admonition comes with increased force ; comp. ch. vii. Q: Kad@s 5€ Kal tov aldvos Td TéAos mpooteBekev, erelywy abrovs Kal die- yelpwy mpds epyaclay rijs Theodoret. The expression ta TéAn tev aidvwy does not practically differ from 7) cuvTéAcia TaY aidvwy, Heb. ix. 26,—both passages implying that the precursory aiaves had well nigh passed away (comp. I John ii.18),and thatthe aidy 6 épyduevos (Mark x. 30), apeTis, 182 ITPOZ KOPINGIOY2 MTPOTH. 12 “Aste 6 Soxdv éEravar, Brerérw pH Téoy. TEipac- ‘ e ‘ > » > ‘ > 4 ‘\ 4 13 pds Uuds ovK ethndev ei pr avOpdmwos: miaTds Se was at hand,—but, by the use of the plural (ra 7éAn), it marks, a little more distinctly, the idea of each age of preparation having passed into the age that succeeded it, so that now, as it were, all the 7éAn had come down to them, and the new aidy was very near: épéornxe Aoimby 70 dikacrhpiov To poBepdy, Chrys. 12. "Qore «.7.r.] ‘*So then, or Consequently, he that thinketh he standeth ;’ inferential exhortation flowing from the preceding state- ment and warnings: Kadés eimev, 6 ‘ Soxay Eordvat.’? Tovro yap ovde éor- dyat eotly, as Eotavat xpn, TO Oappeiv éav7@, Chrys. On the modification of the normal meaning of éote (‘ consecutio alicujus rei ex antece- dentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p- 771, Wilke, Rhet. § 81, p. 265), and its correct rendering in sentences like the present (not ‘proinde,’ Caly., but ‘itaque,’ Vulg.: ‘where- fore,’ Auth., is a little too strongly ratiocinative; contrast 8id7ep k.7.A. ver. 14), see notes on Phil. ii. 12, where the use of the particle (with an imperative) is fully discussed. In all such cases there is a certain rhetorical suddenness which appro- priately changes what might have been expressed by some dependent clause into an independent, yet still inferential, exhortation: compare Kiihner, Gr. § 586. 5. 2. BrXetréTo pH tréog) ‘let him take heed lest he fall; ’ not, from the conviction ‘Deum nunquam sibi defuturum,’ Calv., but simply with reference to, and in contrast with, the preceding he that thinks he is standing morally and firmly (whether in regard of the way of dealing with the question of © s €OTaval: eidwAdbura, ‘or any other great matter), let him beware lest he morally fall; edxephs e& amovoias 7 ara@ois, Theoph. The exhortation is general, but, as Estius and Hofmann correctly remark, the thought of the particular case of eating things offered to idols is clearly present in the Apostle’s mind, and subsequently emerges, not only in a direct admoni- tion (ver. 14), but in a carefully reasoned paragraph: ‘ad hoc {ch. vii. 2 sq.] nunc a digressione rever- titur,’ Estius. 13. TWetpacpdos byas x.T.A.] ‘70 temptation has taken you but such as cometh on man ;’ ‘tentatio. ... nisi humana,’ Vulg., scil., ‘homini superabilis,’ Beng., ‘such as man can bear,’ Rev.: appended reassur- ance, to remove any-.undue discour- agement which the special warning against self-confidence (6 doKxay éordvat, ver. 12) might bear to the general hearer or reader. The temptation was simply av@pémwos,— not ‘from man,’ Ath., comp. Arm., but such as appertains to, and is generally incident to man, and so, in effect, commensurate with man’s powers; ovmuetpos TH pice, Theo- doret, avOpwrivws, avext@s, Pollux (Onomast. ut. cap. 27). It is of course possible, while retaining this meaning, to understand the clause in a totally contrary sense, and as carrying on the warning of the fore- going verse,—‘ hitherto the tempta- tion has only been av@paémuwos, but it will soon assume a much worse form ': so the Greek expositors and many modern interpreters. Sucha view, however, does not seem to harmonize with the use of the perfect elAnpev, which implies a continu- me $8,°%4. 183 c , a > >? a). “ee lal c ‘\ a 6 Ocds, bs ovK edoer bpas TepacOjvar rep 5 , > ‘ , ‘\ “A ”~ ‘ ‘ Svvacbe, GMa TojvE. OV TO TELPAaTHe Kal THY exBacw, Tod Sivacbar UreveyKelv. 13. Tod Sivacba] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds duas. ance of a former state (‘per effectus suos durat,’ Poppo; see notes on Eph. ii. 8), and would have almost certainly necessitated the use of otrw rather than contrast Heb. xii. 4, oftw péxpis aluaros aytixaréotnrte. WisTds 8é 5 Ocds] ‘yea, God is faithful ;’ the 5¢ having here not its ordinary oppositive force, but carrying on the reassurance, and adding (‘quasi per oppositionem quandam,’ Herm.) the further and deeply consolatory thought that God would ever remain true to His promises: ‘ fidelis est Deus in prestanda ope, quam et verbum ejus et pristina opera polli- centur,’ Beng.; see 1 Thess. v. 23, and notes in loc.; comp. 2 Thess. rhe f bs od x K.T.A.] ‘who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which ye are able (to bear)’; the ts having its explana- tory, and slightly confirmatory force, ‘seeing that He will not, &c.;’ see notes on Col. i. 18, 25 and on 1 Tim. ii. 4. This usage often comes out very distinctly after a foregoing question ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 561. 2. a. GAAG troutcet K.T.A.] ‘ but with the temptation will make also the way to escape.’ God is throughout the actor: He permits the temptation, but so moderates its force as also to provide in each case the escape,—not ‘evadendi faculta- tem,’ Cyprian, but the means and the pathway of escape, ‘ egressum,’ Steph.; comp. Eur. Med. 271, koix ouK: tot &rns ebmpdcowros &xBacis. The manner in which God delivers us from temptation is fully discussed by South, Serm. v1. Vol. m1. p. 82 sqq. (Lond. 1843). rod Sivacbat treveyxetv] ‘so that ye may be able to bear it;’ genitival infinitive of the purpose ; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 4. b, and notes on Gal. iii. 10, where this usage is fully dis- cussed. God in each case provides the escape with the merciful design that we may be able to bear that which otherwise would have been otk dyvOpémwov, and above our humanity. Origen (de Princip. m1. 24) calls attention to the dvvac@a as implying that God does not give the breveyxeiv, but the dtvacda trev- eyxeiv,—a remark to which Estius takes exception, but not with suffi- cient reason. What Origen goes on to say is surely quite correct; ‘ei autem virtute que nobis data est ut vincere possimus, secundum liberi arbitrii facultatem aut industrie utimur, et vincimus, aut segniter, et superamur.’ That his teaching on the will and on liberty was not at all clearly thought out, may be fully admitted (see esp. Denis, Philosophie d’Origéne, p. 249 sqq. Paris, 1884), but does not here seem open to ex- ception. On the divinely appointed probation arising from temptations, see Harless, Chr. Eth. § 28, p. 248 (Transl.), and comp. the remarks of Rothe, Theol. Eth. § 745. 2, Vol. ut. p- 300 (ed. 2). 184 IIPOS KOPINGIOY> IIPOTH. 14 Avorep, ayamnrot pov, devyere The Lord's Supper 15 a70 THs Eeldwhodarpetas. fois eyo" 14-22. The serious bearing of the Lord’s Supper on the question now under consideration, viz. of eating meats offered to idols or tak- ing part im their feasts. 14. Avétep] ‘Wherefore, On which account ;’ naturally consequent warn- ing: ‘seeing that things are so, that temptations are all around you, and that in every case God merci- fully provides an avail yourselves of it, and flee from ido- latry.’ The relatival particle, especi- ally if taken as introducing a new paragraph, seems to point back not merely to the verse just pre- ceding, whether to its former (Meyer), or to its latter portion (Hofmann), but to the general tenor of the fore- going verses, esp. ver. I1-13: épas éTL mavTa Tpoceipnucva a’Ta TovTou Severian. It is quite possible to regard the verse as closing the former paragraph (comp. ch. viii. 13); in which case the connexion would seem to be more immediately with the preced- ing verse: the ayamrnroluov, however (Sepamever Aormdy, adeAHods [ayarnrovs] avtovs Kad@v, Theoph.), and per- haps also the imperative (contrast ch. vili. 13), seem to decide in favour of the present arrangement. On 6:d7ep, see notes on ch. viii. 13. devyete Ard TAS cLS0A.] ‘ flee from idolatry ;’ ‘avoid all con- tact with it:’ the danger was near and pressing. Alford and others draw a distinction between this ex- pression and pevyew with the accu- sative (ch. vi. 18, 1 Tim. vi. 11, 2 Tim. ii. 22), but it seems difficult to show that this is a stronger form or appreciably different in sense. It is éxBaots, €veka kaTeockevacero, , ec “ 9 Kpiwate vets O ype. supplies illustration and warning. To partake of it and—of things offered to idols, is profanation. ws dpovi- the more usual form in the N. T.: gevryey €x occurs once (Acts xxvii. 30), in connexion with mAoioy, the usual distinction in meaning between the prepositions being correctly ob- served. I5- @$ gpovipotg Ayo] ‘LI speak as to wise men, to men of good sense,’ ‘i des hommes sensés,’ Reuss,—‘ quibus pauca verba, de hoe areano, sufficiunt ad judican- dum,’ Beng.; the #s marking the aspects under which he was regard- ing them,—that which he was pre- supposing them to be; comp. ch. lii. I, @s mvevuarikois, and see notes im loc. On this use of as, see notes on Eph. vy. 22, and on Col. iii. 23, and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. vii. 1, p- 333, Kiihner, Gr. § 581. 5. Kpivate tpeis & pyr) ‘ judge ye yourselves what I say;’ the em- phatic juets implying that the Apos- tle was quite willing to leave it to their own judgment; ‘vobis relin- quo judicandum,’ Beng. Between the ¢nul here and the Aé¢yw in the preceding clause (comp. Rom. iii. 8), - it is not perhaps easy to draw any distinction beyond this general one, —that Aéyw (as its derivation sug- gests, Donalds. Crat. § 453) points to orderly discourse, gnui (from a Sanscr. root bhd, expressive both of ‘speech’ and ‘ light’), to making plain and clear (declaring) what was in the mind of the speaker. The remaining word AaA@ points to sound and utterance (Trench, Synon, § 76), and though widely different in re- gard of derivation, approximates to our word ‘talk.’ On the Lithuanian origin of this last-mentioned word, see Skeat, Etym. Dict. s. v. p. 622. Ment Pag 153 RO 185 Td wotypiov THs evioylas 6 EvAoyoUpEr, Odyi KoW- 16 9 nw nw »” vovia Eat TOV alwatos Tov Xpiotov ; Tov apTov 16. Kxowwvla éorly) So Treg., Westc. and Hort: Rec., Lachm., Tisch., Rev., xowwvla tod aluaros tod Xpicrod ear. decide between the two readings. It is here very difficult to The character of the authorities in favour of the text, coupled with the probability of a conformation (as to the order of the words) with the second clause, seem to preponderate. 16. Td wotrptov tis evAoylag] ‘the cup of the blessing,’ scil. over which the blessing is pronounced, the genitive tis evAoylas being the gen., not of ‘quality’ (Meyer), but of ‘remoter reference’ (Winer, G7. § 30. 2. 8), and the expression re- ceiving its full elucidation from the clause that follows. The governing words 7d worjpiov are in the accusa- tive, and by a kind of inverted at- traction are regarded as in the same regimen with the relative; see Winer, Gr. § 24.2. a. The Apostle now proceeds to bring out clearly the meaning of his solemn warning in ver. 14. Resting on the usages connected with the Lord’s Supper and the Jewish customs in regard of the eating of the offerings (ver. 18), he shows convincingly that the eat- ing of eidwAdéura, permissible as the illuminated Corinthian might think it, really involved a communion with devils. On the ‘cup of bless- ing’ in its connexion with the cere- monies of the Passover feast, see Lightfoot on Matth, xxvi. 27, but observe that the term 7d morfpioy THs evAoyias is not a term merely derived from the terminology of the Passover, but, as the explanatory 6 evAoyouuey seems Clearly to indicate, is here used by the Apostle in refer- ence to Christian consecration : see hereon, Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 266, p.438 (Transl.), and comp. Riickert, Abendmahl, §17, p. 219 sq. Whether the mo77jpiov men- tioned in Matth. J.c. is to be under- stood as referring to the third or the fourth Passover cup is very doubt- ful. In favour of the latter view (opp. to Lightfoot), see Meyer in loc. 8 evAoyotpev] ‘which we bless,’ i.e., as the nature of the sub- ject implies, consecrate by euchar- istic prayer and blessing: comp. Mark viii. 7, Luke ix. 16. The plural cannot safely be pressed, as implying that this was the act of each participant. It simply points to those who customarily performed the act, the reference to the Holy Communion not being here, as in ch. xi. 23, ritually descriptive, but referred to only so far as was ne- cessary for the general argument: comp, Riickert, Abendmall, § 17, p- 225, note. ovdxl Kotvovia éotiv «.7T.A.] ‘is it not a conununion of the blood of Christ?’ Is not a communion with the blood of Christ imparted by it and, as it were, con- veyed by it? No cup, no kowvia: ‘innuitur summa realitas,’ Beng. The éo7) thus retains its ordinary and proper meaning: the conse- crated cup does not merely signify a kowwvla, but is the bearer of it; the expression being concise, but perfectly intelligible. What the precise nature of the kowwvia is, cannot be determined from this passage, but can only be inferred from the carefully considered tenor of the different portions of Scripture which refer to this momentous subject. 186 IIPOY KOPINOEIOYS MPOTH. A a » Lal nn Lal ov KNOLEV, OVXL KOWwVia TOD THpaTOS TOV XpioTov bd] 9 e » A lal c J S c 17 €oTw; oTu els apTos, EV T@pa ob TOANOL Eopev’ ol It seems here sufficient to say that the verity of Scripture seems to pre- clude our referring the\ rowwria to any other body than that which suffered on the cross, or to any other blood than was then shed for us. But (independently of other con- siderations) as at the first Com- munion, which we are bound to believe was a true Communion, the body was not yet crucified, nor the blood yet poured out, it is obvious that this participation of the faith- ful in the body and blood of our Lord becomes at once lifted out of the realm of the natural and the material, and must be regarded as a spiritual participation, and _ be- cause spiritual, the more deeply and essentially real: comp. Waterland, Doctrine of Eucharist, chap. vi., and (on the ‘unio sacramentalis’), the lucid comments of Dorner, Christian Doctrine, § 145. 3, Vol. rv. p- 326 sqq. (Transl.). bv KAGpev] ‘which we break,’ scil. at the celebration of the Holy Com- munion; comp. Acts xx. 11, KAdoas tov &provy [Rec. erroneously omits tév]. The Apostle does not repeat the mention of the regularly accom- panying evAoyia, as it would be sufficiently clear from the foregoing clause that the reference is to the Holy Communion, and so to the consecrated bread as well as to the consecrated wine. The bread is simi- larly the kowwyla of the Lord’s body : ‘His presence is with the bread, though not init,’ Bp. Patrick, Mensa Mystica, 1. § (Works, Vol. 1. p. 151, Oxford, 1858). On the whole sub- ject the student may be profitably referred to the clear treatise of Waterland above referred to, and for a very thorough statement of the difficulties connected with this profound subject, Dorner, Cir. Doc- trine, Vol. tv. p. 306-333. The views entertained in the early Church will be found in Waterland, and, very fully, in Ebrard, Abend- mahl, 2 vols. 1845, Kahnis, Abend- mahl, 1851,and Riickert,Abendmahl, 1856: see also generally the articles in Herzog, Real-Encyclopddie, Vol. I. p. 28-47 (2nd ed. 1877). The views of our own leading divines are clearly stated by Canon Trevor, Holy Eucharist (Lond. 1876), and the teaching of all writers on the subject, from the first, by Hebert, Lord’s Supper (2 vols.; Lond. 1879). 17. btuets Aptos K.T.A.] ‘ because one bread,—though broken into so many parts, so—one body are we the many :’ so apparently, Vulg., ‘ quo- niam unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus,’ and, still more dis- tinctly, Syr. ‘as then one is that bread, so are we one body,’ and Similarly Aith.: so too apparently Theod., and the Greek expositors. This difficult clause may be taken in three ways; (a) as substantiating the interrogatively expressed state- ment of the preceding verse,—‘ for one bread is there, one body are we the many,’ i.e. ‘for as there is one bread in the Lord’s Supper, so we Christians, though we are many, form one body,—a result which could only come from the fact that the bread was the kowwvla of the body of Christ.’ So Meyer, De Wette, and others. This, however, is a reasoning ‘ab effectu ad causam,’ which, as Meyer admits, involves a filling up of an asyndeton, and, it vhf Bie t- 187 yap mavtes ex TOD évds apTov peréexomev. BdemeTe 18 may be added, a logical padding that, in a passage of this nature, where the Apostle obviously desires to speak out emphatically and trench- antly (xplvare jueis 8 pnut, ver. 15), seems singularly out of place. We may (b) supply éoney after &pros, regarding it as a sort of explanatory clause, ‘ seeing that we who are many are one bread, one body,’ Rev., simi- larly Auth., and so apparently the Coptic and Armenian versions. To this, however, the objection seems fatal, that in the same verse we must take &pros in practically two different meanings. We therefore (c) fall back on the view first specified in this note, according to which the verse-is to be regarded as adding, without any connecting particle, a further statement of considerable moment for the general argument of the paragraph: comp. Martensen, Chr. Eth. § 84, Part um. p. I91 (Transl.). “Ov: thus, with its full causal meaning, introduces the pro- tasis in the sentence, Ey o@ua x.7.A. forming the apodosis, and the whole becomes an éyytrepdy tt (Chrys.) or a 7d wei(ov (Theoph.) to the interro- gative statement which has just pre- ceded: so Beza, Beng., Hofmann, and others. The obvious difficulty is the absence of an ody (Syr., as will have been noticed, actually in- serts it) or of some connecting part- icle. This absence may, however, in a great degree be accounted for by thesharp, emphatic, and indeed inde- pendent, character of each verse in this paragraph. ol yap mdavres «.T.A.] ‘for weall have our share from the one bread ;’ confirm- ation of the inference drawn in the foregoing clause: the fact that we all partake of that one bread is the constitutive principle of our corpor- ate oneness; if we did not thus par- take, the inference would not be correct. The expression is unusual, as weréxew is elsewhere used either with an immediately dependent gen- itive (ver. 21, ch. ix. 12, Heb. ii. 14, v. 13, Vii. 13), or absolutely, the gen- itive being supplied in thought from the context (ver. 30, ch. ix. 10), but never, as here, with an associated preposition. The true construction then probably is, that weréxew here has its dependent genitive left unex- pressed (‘partake of what we par- take’) and that the é« rod ews %prov points to that from which or out of which what was partaken of was derived. The idea of the one- ness of the element is thus a little more distinctly marked. On the omission of the object after the verb, see exx. in Buttm. N. 7. Gr. p. 138, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 597- 2. b. The distinction drawn by Wordsw. between peréxew (sharing with those who also have their shares), and xowwveiv partaking with others in one undivided thing), cannot be substantiated. Both words are used in the Eccl. writers in ref. to the partaking of the Lord’s Supper; see Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. 1. p. 126, 363. All that can properly be said is that xowwveiv implies more distinctly the idea of a community with others: see Cremer, Bibl.- Theol. Worterb. p. 363- 18. BAétere Tdv’lopanA k.7.A.] ‘behold Israel after the flesh;’ t.e. ‘consider, as a second illustration, the case of Israel after the flesh.’ The closely appended kara odpxa is designed to divest the illustration of any spiritual significance; the Apostle is referring simply to the 188 IIPOS KOPINGIOYS MPOQTH. ee \ \ , es Coses x , Tov Iopand kata odpKa* ovy ot é€obiovtes Tas Ov- , lal 19 alas kowwvol TOV OvovacTypiov elou ; Ti ovY dyn ; 18. ovx] So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort (with margin), on clearly preponderant authority: Rec., Treg., Rev., obxt. in verse 16, is also not improbable. nation as such, and to its nationally prescribed ordinances ; contrast Gal. Vi. 16, Tov "IopahA Tod Ocod. ovx ol écBlovtes Tas Bvatas] ‘are not they that eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?’ ‘have not they which eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?’ Rev. The rules connected with this eating of the sacrifices are specified Lev. vii. 15 sq. On the double significance of this eating, in reference to the thank- offerings, viz. communion with him who gave the feast and with one another, and also festive joy, see Bahr, Mos. Cult. m1. 3. 3, Vol. uo. P- 373 8q-; and, in reference to this custom and its significance with heathen nations, 7b. m1. I. 3, p. 234, 259. In the expression KOLVWVOL TOD OvoLacTnpiov, the point which the Apostle presses in argument would seem to be this,— that the one who ate the sacrifices had thus an actual participation with the altar on which the sacri- fices were consumed. The sacrifice was that which mystically united the worshipper and the altar to which he brought his offering. Hof- mann urges that all the Apostle wishes to convey is that the eating of offerings implied more than being a member of the nation, and that what it did imply was a community of altar-worship. But this, as the subsequent reasoning seems to show, is clearly insufficient. If it is to be shown that eating eidwAd6ura carries with it communion with those to whom the sacrifice is offered, then A conformation to the ovx? clearly the statement on which the inference is based must mean that there was a realcommunion between the eater of the @vclas and the No doubt the reason- ing would have been more plain if @cod had been used instead of 6vo.acrnpiov: but as this latter word carries with it, by consequence, a reference to Him whose altar it was (Bahr, Mos. Cult. mt. 3. 3. Vol. 1. Pp. 374), an expression (kowwwvol rod @cod) which would have implied more than could be properly main- tained is avoided, and yet the ana- logy, in point of reasoning, between this clause and the second clause of ver. 20 sufficiently preserved. 19. tt otv dnpt) *‘ What do I say then?’ ‘What is the inference which I am leaving to be drawn from the reference to the elements in the Eucharist, and to the sacri- fices of the old Covenant?’ The Apostle meets a _ difficulty that might suggest itself, as to the infer- ence from what he had said (ver. 16-18), by stating what the true in- ference really was. All that follows the 6 gnut (ver. 15) is naturally referred to in this ti ody onut which follows. Meyer and others refer the question to the clause which immediately precedes, but this ob- scures the reference just stated, and leaves out of sight the inference that might certainly seem capable of being drawn from ver. 16, viz. that the cup and the bread were something more than they seemed to be: see Beng. and Hofmann wm OuctaoTnptov. yO 1 aE oS 189 » OTe eldwhdOurdv Ti €otw, 7 OTL EiSwddv Ti eoTW ; GN’ ore & Ovovew Ta Orn, Saoviows Kat ov 20 19. elSwAd@vtov—elSwAov] This order is maintained by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority. The reversed order, as found in Rev., bears every appearance of having been an early correction. 20. In this verse it is very difficult to decide on what would appear to be the true reading and order of the words. On the whole the following changes in Rec. appear to be required by evidence. For @¢%e1, in each mem- ber of the verse (Rec., Rev.), which would seem to have been a grammatical correction, we read @vovew with Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority. We retain 72 €vy with Rec., Treg., Rev., on preponderating authority, though omitted by Lachm., Tisch., and bracketed by Westc. and Hort: and, lastly, we adopt, on clearly preponderat- ing authority, the order damovlors Kad ob Geg Ovovcw with Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Weste. and Hort: Rec., Rev., Saimoviors Over kal ob Ocg. loc. wt éotiv] ‘is some- thing,’ is really what it is claimed to be,—viz. (in the case of an eidw- Adévrov) an offering made to some being that had a real existence; or (in the case of. an efSwAov) as repre- senting some actual personality. In neither case was this true: the eidw- Adéuroy was mere flesh offered on an altar raised to a supposed divine being that had no real existence ; the ¢«f3wAov was mere wood and stone; really and truly,—nothing. The accentuation adopted by Tisch. (ch. 7), drt eiSwAdburdy Tt Eoriv, } rt eldwAdy rt Eariy, is plausible, as re-in- troducing the assertion of ch. viii. 4, but does not agree with the context, which clearly turns, not on the ques- tion of the existence or non-exist- ence of cidwAd@urov or efdwAov, but on the question raised by the argu- ment in ver. 16, whether the one has any icxds (Theod., Phot.) imparted to it, or the other any real personality behind it: see Hofm. in loc. 20. GAD’ Sti x.7.A.] ‘ But (what I do say is) that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice:’ corrective statement of what it was that was really implied in ver. 16-18, the GAG not referring to any negation to be supplied after the preceding question (Syr., Calv., Meyer, De W.., al.), as there is really no negative necessarily latent in the interroga- tive sentence (contrast Kiihner, Gr. § 535- 4), but simply supplying another and that the true answer to the question; ‘WhatdoIsay? ... Well, without entering further into the question of what idol-offering or idol really is, I say that &c.’ The meaning is practically the same, but the questionable assumption of an ellipsis of a negative which the preceding words do not grammati- cally involve, is rendered unneces- sary. The Apostle drops the wrong answer without comment, and pro- ceeds to the right one. On the true meaning of G@AAd (‘aliud jam hoe esse, de quo sumus dicturi’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 2 sq. On the use of the neuter subst. plural with the verb plural, see Winer, Gr. § 58. 3. a. B: &vn is used by St Paul in the same Epistle with both the verb singular (Rom. ix. 30) and the verb plural (Rom. ii. 14, xv. 27), and apparently without any very clearly definable difference. 190 TIPO KOPINSIOYS IIPOTH. Oed Ovovaw' ov Oddw dé tas Kowwvods TOV Sat- c , / 7 / 21 povior yverOar. ov divacbe totypiov Kupiov wiv- ew Kal toTypiov Sayoviov’ ov dtvacbe mpamelnys . As a rough and general rule the verb is more commonly found in the plural when the neut.-plural sub- stantive refers to animate objects, and in the singular, when the refer- ence is to what is abstract and in- animate: see Buttm. Gramm. N. T. p. 110, and compare Kiihner, Gr. § 365. Satpovlousg Kal od Oc] ‘to demons, and not to God ;’ to evil spirits (as always in the N. T., except Acts xvii. 18, where the speakers are heathens; see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 170 sq.), and not, under any guise or form, to God (‘to Aloha,’ Syr., ‘Domino,’ Ath.),—the last clause (see Deut. xxii. 17, of which this seems a reminiscence) being added to accentuate the former, and to preclude the supposition that though the offering was made to idols, the worshippers were uncon- sciously recognizing, however dimly, the one God by their acts; comp. Acts xvii. 23 sq. Nosuch charitable construction was to be put on their acts. Though not intentionally, yet, really and actually, they were sacrificing, in accordance with the fixed belief of the Jewish Church (Deut. xxxii. 17, Psalm cvi. 37; comp. Psalm xcy. 5, LXX, Baruch iv. 7), and, as here St Paul, speak- ing under the influence of the Holy Ghost, clearly reveals to us, to—ra mvevpatiKa THs movnptas (Eph. vi. 12), to spiritual beings who formed a part of the kingdom of Satan. As Reuss (in loc.) truly says, ‘le culte idolaitre, en tant que frustrant le vrai Dieu de Vhonneur qui lui est dai est un culte du diable.’ Such was the uniform teaching of the early Christian Church: see Usteri, Paul. Lehrb. p. 401 sq., and on the subject generally, Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 86. 3, Vol. m1. p. 105 sq. (Transl.), Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 68, p. 129 sq. (Transl.), Roskoff, Gesch. des Teufels, Vol. 1. p. 223 sq. ov Oéd\m Se «.7.A.] ‘and I would not that ye should have communion with devils :’ further statement by means of the continuative yet slightly antithetical 5€ (‘novum quid accedit,’ Herm. Viger, p. 845) ; after what he has just said, this further statement is almost neces- sarily called for; mAclova pdBov év- 7lOnow, Theodoret. This statement is elucidated by the two negative clauses which follow. On the use of the article (tay Saporvlwy) as marking the class, especially with plural nouns, see Kiihner, Gr. § 461. I. The damdva are here regarded as a community; in the preceding clause they are only alluded to generally, and as individuals of a class ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 3, where this generic use of the article is well discussed. 21. ov Stvacbe k.T.A.] ‘Ye can- not drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils;’ in emphatic confirmation of the foregoing clause, all particles being omitted to give a greater sharpness and force to this and the following amédacts ; kal vowoberet a moral Gmopatverat Aomdy Aéywv, Chrys. It was impossibility (7@s ofdy re; Theod.) for them to drink of two cups marked by such infinitely opposed charac- teristics. The genitival relation may xX. 21, 22. 191 Kupiov peréxew kal tparélys Sapoviov. i) tapa- 22 {povdpev tov Kupvov ; 7) toyupdrepou adtod eoper ; be slightly differently estimated. It may be a simple possessive genitive, or a gen. of inner reference of a re- moter kind’ (Winer, G. § 30. 3), or even, as Hofmann suggests, of a partially qualitative nature. The more natural view seems to be that it is merely a genitive of relation (Donalds. Gr. § 453), the peculiar nature of the relation being quite clear to the readers of the words, from their knowledge of the way in which in each case the cup was used. Whether, in the second member, the reference was to the use of the cup in the temple banquets, or in sacri- ficial libations, cannot be specified with certainty. The Corinthians, at any rate, very well knew what the Apostle meant. Tpatrétns Kvuplov] ‘the table of the Lord:’ with obvious reference to the Lord’s Supper and the elements that were placed thereon to be taken and eaten by the faithful. In the contrasted expression the reference is to the festal table on which the eidwAdéura were placed for the guests that were assembled. There is no need for regarding tpdre(a as meaning Ta oirla éx’ airijs riWeueva (Pollux, cited by Alf.; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1m. p. 1280): in each case it was the table with whatsoever was placed thereon ; comp. Isaiah lxv. 11 (LXX). It will be observed that the substan- tives are all anarthrous (though this cannot readily be expressed in trans- lation), the Apostle’s reference being in each case perfectly wide and general: see Kiihner, Gr. § 452. k. The absence of the article in the first member of each clause may be explained on the principle of ‘ cor- relation,’ viz. that as Kuplov often dispenses with the article (Winer, Gr. § 19, 1), the governing noun will in such cases also be anarthrous ; see notes on Eph. iv. 12, v. 8, and comp. Green, Gr. p. 46. This ex- planation, however, can hardly be applied to the second clauses; we believe, therefore, that the absence throughout of the article is inten- tional. 22. i wapalnAotpev Tov Kvptov] ‘or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy ;’ monitory alternative, ‘ or is it that we are so indifferent to the principle just laid down that we are neglecting it, and braving the Lord’s anger?’—the present having its usual and proper force, and marking the course, which, in this alternative, they would be pursuing; see Winer, Gr. § 41. 3. b. The verb rapaCnaodv (Suid. wapotvve, Zonar. épediCev, Theod. mapakvi¢ew) is only used in the N. T. here and Rom. xi. 11, 14 (LXX, Deut. xxxii. 21, of which this passage seems a reminiscence, 1 Kings xiv. 22, Ecclus. xxx. 3), and properly implies ‘ provocation,’— ‘opposito «mulo et rivali’ (Steph. Thesaur. s. v.), the ‘wmulus’ and ‘rivalis’ being either expressed or implied in the context. The term Kvpios, though in Deut. 1. c. and I Kings J. c. referring to God, is here, owing to the use in the pre- ceding verse and the general subject- matter, to be referred to our Lord; see Estius i loc. wr loxvpdétrepor «.7.A.] ‘are we stronger than He?’ ‘Can we brave His indignation with impunity?’ ‘ad- monet, quam periculosum sit Deum provocare,’ Calv. The interpretation of Hofmann according to which the term would rather refer to moral 192 TTPOS KOPINSIOY> TIPOTH. > * 23 avra e€eotw, add’ od ravra cup- Consider others, and , , ¥ > > > , dépa’ mavta e€eatw, add’ ov ravTa do not hurt weak con- sciences, but doall to God's glory, 24 olkodopet’ pydels TO EavTov Lynteitw, adda Td TOD Eré- 25 pov. Ilav 76 €v pakéd\iw Todovpevov ea Oiere, 23. mdvra(bis)] In each member po is added in Rec., but omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority. 24. To Tod Erépov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds €xaoros. strength (‘can we regard with in- difference, and without any jealous feeling, what He never can?’) seems artificial, and out of harmony with the plain blunt tone of the question : els &romov amayer tov Adyov, Theo- phylact. 23-xi. 1. General principles, fol- lowed by directions as to the subject- matter (idol-offerings), and closing exhortations. I. Naévra é€eoriv «.7.A.| ‘ All things are law- ful; howbeit all things profit not ;’ recurrence to the principle specified in ch. vi. 12 (where see notes), but with limitations suggested by the principle of consideration for the feelings of others; the sense being, as rightly expressed by Theodoret,— tteori cor bv Ty A€yes Exew ywaow mdyTa Tow, GAN’ o¥TE ToL TuUpeper T) BAdrrew €Erépous, ovTe exelvous oikodome: TO Tapa ood ywvduevov,— except that here, as in ch. vi. 12, the cvupépe is not to be limited to the imaginary speaker (‘ utilitas est mea,’ Beng.), but to be understood generally. ov wdavTa olkoSopet] ‘all things edify not;’ do not build up the Christian brother- hood, but rather, on the contrary, break it up: see Rom. xiy. 19, 20, where 7d katadvew ig contrasted The tenor of the present paragraph is closely in har- with oikodoun. mony with the tenor of Rom. xiv. 13-23: the two passages form a ma- nual of counsel as to the Christian’s duty to others in the matter of liberty in things indifferent. On this verse, and on the extension of our Christian liberty, and also its limitation, see two good sermons by Bp. Sanderson, Serm. xt., xir. (ad Aulam), p. 507 sqq- (Lond. 1689). 24. wnSelg Td EavTrod x.7.A.] * Let no one seek his own but each his neighbour’s good:’ direct pre- cept naturally flowing from the reference to oikodouy in the pre- ceding clause, and preparing the reader for the more specific instruc- tions of ver. 25 sqq. The general sentiment, in its reference to what follows, is correctly expressed by (icum.,—p yap TovTo pdvov Cnret ei Kabapag ob eoOiets cvverdhoe GAR’ ci kal toy adeApdy cou wpeAc? Td ywd- pevov. The sentence presents an instance of a very intelligible brachy- logy, the affirmative Exaoros being mentally supplied in the second member from the preceding pydels: see Winer, Gr. § 46. 1. ¢, Kihner, Gr. § 597. 2. g., Bernhardy, Synt. p. 458. On the precept set forth in this verse, and our true relation of love to our neighbour, comp. Rothe, Theol. Eth. § 147 sq., Voli. p. 520 sqq. (ed. 2). 25. Mav rd év pakéAA@ k.T.A.] wee "Say 24; 253/20; 193 pndev avaxpivortes Sia Thy ovveidnow* Tod Kupiov 26 26. rod Kuplov yap) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating evidence: Rec., Rev., rod yap Kuplov. ‘everything, or (according to our idiom) anything that is on sale in the meat-market, eat;’ specific direction as to the special question of the eating of the cidwAdéuta. The term udkeddAov (7) a&yopa Tav iywr, Dio Cass. 61. 18) is the Latin ‘ ma- cellum’ (from a root wax-; comp. dxaipa, macto; see Curtius, Gr. Etym. No. 459, p. 328) in a Greek form, for which, in earlier Greek, we occasionally find the simple 7d bpov (rotor); see Steph. Thesaur. s. v. ad fin., and Pollux, Onomast. 2 WE 7.38. ndtv dvaxply- ovtes] ‘asking no questions, mak- ing no enquiry ;’ ‘absque disquisi- tione,’ Syr.; ‘nihil interrogantes,’ Vulg.; ‘ni vaiht andhruskandans,’ Goth.; ‘ne examinetis,’ Ath. ; put- ting no anxious questions as to whence that which was offered for sale was procured: avetcbe, wh epwravtes eite cidwdd- adeGs Tolvuy Ourdy eorw, etre kal uh? TovTO yap Aéyet avaxplvovres, Theodoret. 81a THY ovvelSnarv] ‘ for conscience sake.’ This clause may be con- nected either (a) with the whole participial clause undtv avaxplvoytes, in which case the meaning would be, ‘avoiding all enquiry so as not to disturb conscience,’ or (b) with avaxpl- vovres only (the more natural order, however, would then be pndev 51a thy cuveld, avax.), the meaning being, ‘without making any conscientiously suggested enquiry.’ Of these (a) is to be preferred as simpler and more in harmony with ver. 27, and also as preserving in 5:4 the same shade of meaning throughout. The tenor of the advice in each verse seems to be ‘don’t enquire, and run the risk of disturbing your conscience by the answers you may receive (iva uh TAnyH 7 TuvelBnols cov, dia TodTO wh avdxpwe, Theoph.); but if you are told, without your having enquired, then let conscience have its full play, and eat not.’ So the Greek commen- tators (except Phot. ap. Cram. Cat.), whose judgment in a matter of this kind seems to deserve considerable weight. To regard this ovveldnois as referring to the weak brother’s conscience (ver. 29), though main- tained by Beng., De W., al., seems almost exegetically impossible. No reader or hearer, when the simple direction came before him, could think of any other cvveldnois being referred to than his own. In ver. 29 the case is altered by a €érepos having already been brought for- ward. The sum and substance of the verse is well expressed by Bengel, ‘sepe curiositas plus nocet quam simplicitas.’ On the meaning of ovveidnois, see notes on ch. viii. 10, and on 1 Tim.i. 5; see also Cremer, Worterb. p. 233 sqq. 26. tod Kuplov yap «.7.A.] ‘for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof :’ confirmation, from Psalm xxiy. 1, of the direction given in the preceding verse,—‘ eat and enquire not, for if the earth and all that is therein be the Lord’s, the meat in the meat-market is His, and, being His, may be eaten by His servants without anxiety or doubtfulness ; ’ @cod KaAdv, kal pera may xKtloua ovdev amrdBAnroyr, evxapiorias AauBayvéuevoy, 1 Tim. iv. 4. The point of the confirmatory O 194. TPO KOPINOIOY2 IIPOTH. ‘ e lal ‘ x X , a au ial ” > ote we a 27 y2p 0 yn Ka ke 7 saa shal €l TLS KAAEL ULAS lal . Lal A Tov aniotwv Kai Oéhete topever Oar, wav Td Tapa- /, e Lal > , de > v2 ‘\ ‘A TUOeuevov vpw eoOlete, pndev avakpivovtes dia THY , 5s , e La »” lal c , vs 28 ouveidnow: éeav dé Tis vu Ely Todto tepdbutdv 27. ef tis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., ei 5€ tis. 28. fepddvtov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre- ponderating authority: Rec., eiSwAd@vtov, with good authority, but with the high probability against it that this latter and more familiar word was a correction. The repetition in Rec., after cuvelinow, of the words of ver. 26 is rejected in all the above-named edd. on very greatly preponder- ating authority. quotation is, that if the earth and its tAhpwua (all things that it con- tains,—herbs, fruit, flesh, &c.; see below) be God’s, there can be no inherent quality in anything that canrender enquiry necessary whether it be such as would bring with it defilement ; «i 5€ aitod mayra, ovdev axdbaprov, Chrys. It may be said (see Meyer) that this rather points to the connexion of 8:4 Thy ocvveldnow simply with avaxptvoytes (see above), but the reply seems valid, that the quotation does not merely confirm the last words of ver. 26, but its whole tenor, of which 6a thy cuvel- Snow is but an appended and sub- ordinated thought ; see Hofmann 77 loc. Td TArpona artis) ‘the fulness thereof ;’ that which fills it, and without which it would be practically empty: comp. 7A7- pwpa (@addoons), Psalm xcy. If, I Chron. xvi. 32 (LXX). The word is here used in its more usual and common sense, id quo res impletur ; see notes on Gal. iv. 4, Eph. i. 23, and the very full and clearly-written note of Fritzsche on Rom. xi. 12, Vol. 1. p. 469 sq. 27. eb TLS KONE Kia haley any one of them that believe not in- viteth you ;’ scil. to a banquet of a general nature (not a temple feast), at which, however, it would be quite possible that eiSwAd6ura might be on the table: ‘docet qua libertate et cautelaé utendum sit in mensis pri- vatis infidelium,’ Estius. Kal O€AeTe opevedGar] ‘and ye wish to go there.’ In the verb 6éAere there is something more than oite mpotpevacbat ore amoTtpeWacba avTds nBovtreto, Theophylact (see Theod., Chrys.). As Grot. and, in effect, Beng., observe, there is a hint that they would be wise to keep away from such entertainments alto- gether; ‘non yalde probat,’ Beng. On the meaning of @éAw (here with its full force, ‘vultis ire,’ Vulg.) see Cremer, Wéorterb. p. 143, and comp. notes on chap. vii. 7. 28. éav &€ tig piv etary] ‘ but af anyone should say to you;’ the more general ef of the former verse passing here into the more restricted édy (‘utrum vere futurum sit, necne, id nescio, verum experientia cognos- cam,’ Herm.), and presenting a case of distinctly objective possibility: see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, and notes on Gal. i. 8, 9, where the two particles are similarly used, but in a contrary order. The difficult question of the clause is the person referred to by y > we 27, 7°28," 40. 195 > A. 2 i 8 Re La) ‘\ , ‘ ‘\ eat, py exOiere Ou Exewvor TOV pynviccavTa Kal THY avveidnow* cuveldinow S€é éyw odyt Tv EavTod 29 > x »,' n | ee 4 9 , . ¢ > , aka THY TOU ETEpov' Wa TL yap % éevOepia pov the ris. At first sight it would seem that, as fepé@vrov (on this form, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 159) is a more natural expression in the mouth of a heathen than «idwad- @uvrov, a fellow-guest tay axlotav (Chrys., Theoph.) is here referred to. As, however, the 8: éretvoy «.7.A. is so much more intelligible if referred to a Christian converted from heathenism (Reuss),—as the 5. will thus preserve the same shade of meaning throughout,—and as the term iepd@vtoy would be just what would be expected from the mouth of one formerly a heathen at the table of a heathen host, it seems best to regard the speaker as a Christian who gives a warning, either from real or assumed know- ledge, to the Christian who is sitting beside him. Tov pnvicavtTa x.T.A.] ‘for the sake of him who gave the informa- tion and for conscience sake: scil. ‘not to shock the brother who made the fact known’ (Tov pnyicayra: ‘notat indicium rei serium,’ Beng. ; comp. Acts xxiii. 30, unvubelons 5é poor éwiBovais), ‘and (to speak more precisely) not to wound conscience;’ the last words of ver. 25 and ver. 27,—now assuming the character of a kind of formula,—being designedly repeated to make the meaning of 5.’ éxetvov «.7.A. still more clear. On this sort of explanatory force of wal, see Kiihner, Gr. § 521. 2, and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. The Apostle would seem studiously to have left the cuvelinow without any defining airod (opp. to Hofm.), that he might bring out, by means 8 éxeivov of ver. 29, still more sharply his meaning. On this whole passage, see Reuss in loc. (Epitres Paul. p. 217), who has brought out very clearly the meaning of words that have certainly been somewhat clouded by exposition. 29. ovvetSno.v 8% A€yw] ‘con- science, I say;’ the 8 being here simply reiterative, and marking the emphatic repetition of the word: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p. 361, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 168, Kiihner, Gr. § 531.4. In all such eases the original force of the par- ticle can always be traced; see notes on Phil. ii. 8. obvxl THY éavtTod «.7.A.] ‘not thine own, but that of the other man,—who gave the information. The €repos (‘is quicum negotium est,’ Grot.) refers clearly to the unvicayra of the pre- ceding verse,—to the Christian fel- low-guest who warned his neighbour of the fepé@vroy that was on the table. The Apostle here practically illus- trates the precept he had given in ver. 24. tva tl yap x.7.A.] ‘for why is my liberty to be judged by another conscience?’ confirma- tion, in an interrogative form, of the statement that the ocuveldnots was not, as in yer. 25, 27, the con- science of the one (‘velut unum compellans e pluribus scientiam habentibus, ad quos_ superiorem direxerat sermonem,’ Estius) to whom the above precept had been given, but the conscience of the other one who had given the warn- ing. If it were his own conscience (‘ex sud persona alios docet,’ Est.), then the scruples of another would 02 196 TIPO KOPINGIOYS ITPOTH. 30 Kpiverar b7d GAys auverdyjoews ; Ei Cyd yapuTe peTEXO, ti Bhaodynpovpar Lee kg er. | > UTEP OU eyw €vU- 30. «i éyé) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., ei 5€ éyd. be depriving him of his own free- dom, viz. to eat what was put before him whether fepd@uroy or not, provided that it was with thanks- giving (ver. 30); ‘conscientia illius infirma non potest meam conscien- tiam libertate privare,’ Beng.; see Reuss in loc. The force of the con- firmatory question is heightened by the change of expression,—not ‘ the conscience of the other,’ but some- thing more definitely alien, ‘another conscience;’ @&AAos marking, as usual, a distinction of individuality: see notes on Gal. i. 6. On the ellip- tical a me (yévnta or yévoiTo; comp. the Latin ‘ut quid’), see Winer, Gr. § 25. 1, Kiihner, Gr. § 587. The form occurs in five other places in the N. T., viz. Matth. ix. 4, Luke xiii. 7, and three quotations from the LXX, Matth. 46, Acts iv. 25, vii. 26. 30. el éyo xdpiTe petéxo] ‘Sf T partake thankfully :’ farther con- firmation of the rightfulness of the Christian freedom on the part of the one whom the Apostle is now repre- senting; the éyw being emphatic (‘I on my part’), and the xdpirt being the modal dative (Winer, Gr. § 31. 7. d, Kiihner, Gr. § 425, 11, Donalds. Gr. § 456. cc), marking the [justifying] concomitant and acces- sory of the action; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 16. The difference between this dative and the dative of the ‘subjective cause’ (see notes on Phil. ii. 3) is extremely slight, and, if definable, amounts to this,— that the approximation to a simple adverb is somewhat nearer in the former case than the latter. It may be added that the exact shade of the dative will be modified by the meaning assigned to the noun: xdpis may mean ‘grace’ (Rev.; so Theoph., dia Thy xapw Tod @cod, Phot., ek xapitos yéyovas TéAe1os, and so appy. Syr., Goth.), but more probably here means simply ‘thankfulness:’ so Copt., appy. Vulg. (‘cum gratia’) and most modern expositors. The objection (Hofm.) that it would thus have been pera& xdpiros, founded on 1 Tim. iv. 4, is wholly without point. It is the very form adopted (the modal dat.) which (with the corre- lated evxapior@) leads to the other interpretation. Tl BAaodnp- otpar K.7.A.] ‘why am TI to be evil spoken of in regard of that for which I give thanks?’ If that was done which sanctified the food (1 Tim. iv. 4), what just ground was there for reviling the speaker for his use of his Christian liberty? On this use of the present (comp. ver. 29, Rom. iii. 7) in ref. to some- thing that is ideally contemplated as just about to take place, see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. a, Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 6, compare Kriiger, Sprachl. §53- I. The general question whether any eidwAdéutoy ought to be eaten when it was positively known to be such,—a question which Augustine (Hpist. 154) appears to have decided contrary to the tenor of this passage (see also, A:daxh Tav *Am., cap. 6) is elaborately discussed by Estius in loc. What the Apos- tle is here discussing is the principle of Christian liberty ; and that liberty Aa 404 83, S25 93: YapirT@ ; 197 Eire obv éoOiere cite mivere cite 31 Te movie, mavta eis Sd€av Ocovd moveire. ampd- 32 \) , , \¢ \ a oKoTo. Kal Iovdaios yiverbe kai “E\\noi Kal 7H exk\noia Tov Ocov, Kalas Kayo TavTa Tacw 33 32. Kal 'Iovdalois ylver@e] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., ylveode cat ‘lovdalors. is not to be explained away. On edxapioT@, and its association with mep) or dwép, see notes on ch. i. 4. 31. Etre otv éo@lete k.7-A.] * Whether then ye eat or drink or do anything :’ concluding exhortation, founded on what has preceded, and gathered up, by means of the collec- tive oby (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 717), into a simple and general form of Christian counsel, applicable to eat- ing, drinking, and acting generally. The rendering, ‘whatsoever ye do,’ Auth. (comp. Copt., ‘aliud opus’), is not exact, the t: simply being ‘anything’ (Vulg., Syr., Goth.), and the t: moetre an extension of that, viz. eating and drinking, which had formed the substance of the pre- ceding paragraphs: ‘generali sen- tentid concludit Apostolus superi- orem doctrinam,’ Estius. mdvrTa els 86€av «.7.A.] ‘do all things to the glory of God:;’ kad@s Gmrayta wepieAaBe, Theodoret. The Apostle sums up all by specifying the one end and object of all Chris- tian activity,—the glory of God: comp. ch. vi. 20, Matth. v. 16, 1 Pet. iv. 11, al., see Martensen, Chr. Eth. Part 1. § 121, p. 369 (Transl.). As Rothe well says, all our actions should become a veritable Divine service: see Theol. Ethik, § 986, Vol. rv. p. 169 (ed. 2). Wordsw. very pertinently cites the wise comments of Hooker on this great command, the sum of which is expressed in the following words: ‘In the least thing done disobediently toward God, or offensively against the good of men whose benefit we ought to seek for as our own, we plainly show that we do not acknowledge God to be such as indeed He is, and conse- quently that we glorify Him not. This the blessed Apostle teacheth.’ fccl. Pol. 1. 11, 1. 32. atpécKoTrot kal ’lovSalots yiveo8e k.7.A.] ‘ give no occasion of stumbling either to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God:’ further exhortation as to conduct, suggested by the tenor of the whole passage and esp. of ver. 28; comp. ch. viii. g. They were to be ampécxoro,— ‘ giving no offence ’(‘ sine offensione,’ Vulg.; ‘non sitis offendiculum,’ Copt.) ; not, intransitively, ‘ offendi- culo carentes’ (comp. Goth.), as in Acts xxiv. 16, and in Phil. i. 10, where see notes. The form is not found in ordinary Greek. The three towards whom this conduct is to be shown are then specified, Jews, Greeks, and their fellow-Christians : to the oi €§w (ch. v. 12; comp. Col. iv. 12, 1 Thess. iy. 12) and to the of @ow (ch. v. 13) they were to be alike ampéakorot, 33. KaOas Kayo x.T.A.] ‘even as I also please all men in all things,’ as he had already very fully speci- fied, ch. ix. 19 sq. He was not ‘seeking to please’ (Winer, Gr. § 55. 5-8, see contra notes on Gal. i. 10), but from his own point of view was doing so. He was doing 198 IIPOZ KOPINGIOYS IIPOTH. . 4 A nw A > nw 4 . a a apéckw, wn Cntav 70 ewavtod avpdopor, adda TO XI. rév rodd\Gv, va cwhdow t ( iver O . . pyentat pov yiveoOe, Kaas kaya Xpicrod. 33- stupoporv] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., Rev., cvppépor. all that was calculated to bring about that result. The accus. mavta is the accus. of what is termed the ‘ quantitative’ object, and serves to define the measure and extent of the action; see notes on ch. ix. 25, Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 6. 16, Madvig, Synt. § 27, and on the connexion of this with the double accusative, Winer, Gr. § 32.4. a. pa Entav x.7.A.] ‘not seeking mine own profit, but that of the many:’ cir- cumstantial participle defining the principles and spirit of his action ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. e, and comp. notes on ch. ii. 13, and on Col. 1.28. Winer (Gr. § 55. 5.8) appears to regard this as a form of the causal participle (‘inasmuch as I, &c.’), and regards the negative as due to the conception in the mind of the writer which the finite verb involves. This, however, is perhaps over- refinement, as “} with participles is the prevailing usage in the N. T.; see notes on Gal. iy. 8, and on 1 Thess. ii. 15. The exact shade of meaning of participles in this sort of connexion is always open to differ- ence of opinion, the varied use of the participle in every form of secondary predication being one of the more marked characteristics of the Greek language: comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 10. 1. oebdorv] ‘in order that they may be saved:’ end and aim of all the Apostle’s work; comp. ch. ix. 22, 4, ‘ x s Va2WUYTWS TLYVAS DWAGW. tva In modern missionary effort this great aim may have been too much obscured: the glory of God should, beyond all doubt, be the motive principle of all effort (see ver. 31), but the bringing souls out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1. 13) may rightly be set forth as the very highest of motives, no human effort tending more directly to the glory of Almighty God: comp. Est. in loc. XI. I. pupnrat pov ytlvecbe} ‘ Become imitators of me :’ closing exhortation, fully justified by the tenor of the preceding verse, in which the highest principles of human action were set forth; ‘nihil pre- seribit aliis quod non prior observa- verit,’ Calvy. This is the second time in the Epistle (see ch. iv. 16) that the same exhortation has been given. Any shade of offence that such words could, by any chance, haye given is at once remoyed by the clause which follows. KaQa>s Kaya Xptrotod] ‘even as 1 also am of Christ ;’ the comparative kal serving to bring out the fact that he himself was an imitator, as he advised them to be,—an imitator of the highest of all examples. On this and other uses of kal, see notes on Phil. iv. 12. Of all that had been said in the last verse Christ was verily and indeed the apxérumov : kal yap 6 Xpiotbs ovx EavT@ Hpecey, Rom. xy. 3. On the duty of imita- ting Christ and His followers, see a wise sermon by Farindon, Sevm. Vol. m1. p. 205 sqq. (Lond. 1849), and on the duty generally of setting Bl, Sy 2, "8. Women must not pray or cae wed with un- cov heads, as men rightly do. 199 > a c A 9 , / Exaw@ 8é buds ote ava prov pép- 2 vnobe kat Kalas Tapédoxa tu Tas , ¢ , > am al > 4 9 ‘ mapadoces kaTexeTe. Oéhw dé buds cid€vardriTavTos 3 2. duds] Rec. adds adeApoi: Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort omit, on very clearly preponderating authority. a good example, comp. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1027, Vol. rv. p. 258 sq. (ed. 2). VY. CENSURES ON DISORDERS IN THEIR CHURCH ASSEMBLIES (ch, xi. 2-34). 2-16. That women ought not to pray or prophesy with uncovered heads. 2. “Emratva 8 x...) ‘ Now I praise you that in all things ye remember :’ transition, by means of the 8% meraSartixdy (see notes on Gal. i. 11, iii. 8), from the questions which had now been answered, to certain matters con- nected with their religious service on which it was necessary to anim- advert. Winer (Gr. § 53. 2.c) re- gards this verse as in antithetical connexion with ver. 1. (‘ Yet in this exhortation I mean no blame’) but with detriment to the connexion of this verse with what follows, and also to the sort of terminating character of the preceding precept: comp. ch. iv. 16. The Apostle, with the thorough knowledge which he had of the human heart, begins with words of praise and concilia- tion: amd eyxwulwy Gpxera, Chrys, In this praise there was no irony (Lomb., Aquin.), and certainly no want of truth or reality (Theodoret) ; the Corinthian Church did remember the Apostle, and was also the sub- ject of his thanksgiving to God (ch. 1. 4), but some members of that Church had, in various ways, lapsed into disorder: see Calv. in loc. The mayra is the accus. of the ‘ quanti- tative’ object (see notes on ch. ix. 25) and is not governed by, but de- pendent on péurvnode, the direct construction with the accus. (in which the idea seems that of ‘ bear- ing in mind,’ or ‘ keeping in remem- brance ’; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 417. 6. 12) not being found in the N. T., though not uncommonly found in earlier Greek. Kal Kabas wapéSaxa K.T.A.] ‘and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them unto you’: expansion and practical elucidation of the preced- ing member, the «al adding the more distinctive and special (notes ov Col. iy. 12) to the more general sou éuvnobe; they remembered their Apostle, and evinced it by main- taining and holding fast (comp. Luke viii. 15, tov Adyov Katéxovow, 1 Thess. v. 21, 7d Kaddv katéxere, Heb. x. 23, karéxwuev Thy duodoyiav) the instructions which he had left with them. These ‘traditions’ (see notes on 2 Thess. ii. 15) were instruc- tions in relation to doctrine and discipline which the Apostle, either orally or, possibly, in the letter which has not come down to us (see notes on ch. y. 2), had given to his con- verts at Corinth. The traces of many such deeper rapaddceis may be observed in this Epistle (comp. vi. 2), and elsewhere in the Apostle’s writings: see 2 Thess. ii. 5. 3. O€Aw BE bag elSévar] ‘ but I would have you know;’ notwith- standing the general commendation, they needed a clearer knowledge of certain broad principles, upon which what might seem usages of slight 200 MPO KOPINOGIOYS ITPOTH. avopos 7 Kehahy 6 Xpiotds €otw, Kepady dé yuvaiKos 4 6 avyp, Kehayn dé Tov XpuoTov 6 Ocds. Tas avnp 3. Tod Xpicrod| So [(Lachm.], Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. omits Tov. In the earlier portion of the verse the article before Xpiords is slightly doubtful, but, on the whole, to be retained. moment would be found seriously to depend: mporpemdpuevos GAdov 7) aro- dexouevos rAeyet, Severian (Cram. Cat.), Inthis formula (see Col. ii. 1) the Apostle seems to mark the real necessity he felt (‘ volo, apertam facit professionem animi,’ Beng.) to bring home to them the truth he was about to specify; comp. ch. x. I. St itavTos avSposg x.7.A.] ‘that the head of every man is Christ,’ or, more exactly, Christ is the head (i xe. being the predicate, Buttm. Gr. N. T. p. 109, comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 7) of every man; not merely ‘ of every Christian’ (Chrys., Theoph., al.), but, of every man (comp. Est.) : of the whole human family (not here to mention the angelical world, Col. ii. 10), Christ, the God-man, is the Head; see Hofm. in loc. The mean- ing of kepad7y must not be unduly limited or unduly extended. The general idea is that of supremacy or pre-eminence (comp, Eph. y. 23), but the particular character of that supremacy or pre-eminence must, in each case be determined by the con- text, and by the nature of the things specified. Thus, in the first mem- ber, the supremacy or pre-eminence is in regard of nature and of headship of the whole human family ; in the second, in regard of divinely ap- pointed order and authority (Gen. ii. 22, 23, iii. 16: see below, v.8, 9); inthe third, in regard of priority and office, —the pre-eminence of the Father, as Bp. Pearson says, ‘ undeniably consisting in this that He is God not of any other but of Himself, and that there is no other person who is God but is God of Him,’ Creed, art. 1. Vol. 1. p. 60 (ed. Burton): see Waterland, Second Def. Vol. a. p. 397 sq. (Oxford, 1843). Kepadr 5 Xprorod 6 Geds | ‘and the head of Christ is God,’ or more exactly, God is the head of Christ ; the anarthrous xepady really being the predicate; see above. This is not said merely xar’ dvOpwrdtnta (Theod., comp. @icum.), but, as spe- cified above, in reference to that idia(ovca bwepoxy (Chrys.) which be- longs to the First Person of the blessed Trinity. Estius here seems to feel some difficulty (‘dure sonat in divinis Patrem dici caput Filii’), but without reason : it is true biblical doctrine to ascribe this headship to the holy mystery of the eternal generation of the Son, and to the blessed truth, ‘ that the Father has that essence [which is common to both}—of Himself; the Son, by com- munication from the Father’ (Pear- son): see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 91, Vol. m1. p. 180 (Clark). The nature of the climactic statement seems designed still more to justify the directions which follow: if the woman stood in a relation of sub- ordination to man, and man to Christ, and Christ (in the sense above explained) to God, the cere- monial relation of the woman to God in the services of the Church might well be marked by some out- ward token which indicated her true ast as 5: 201 , a , . “~ » Mpowevyomevos 7) Tpopytevav Kata Kehays Exwv Kataurxvver THY Kepalnv adTov. maca S€é yuri) 5 position in regard of man; whereas, in the case of man, whose kepad} was Christ, such a token, as the se- quel shows, would violate all edratia: see Chrys. in loc. 4. TGs dvip x.T.A.] ‘every man praying or prophesying ;’ temporal participles specifying the circum- stances of the case under considera- tion; comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, obs., here more correct than in § 45. 3, 0, where this secondary predication is translated relativally ‘who prays or prophesies,—a distinct inaccuracy, as the participle withowt the article, whether in a secondary or a tertiary predication, can never be rightly rendered by a relatival clause which would imply a participle with the article; see Donalds. Gr. § 492. The Apostle is now proceeding to show the full bearing and signifi- cance of the climactic statements in the preceding verse. He does not, however, deal with the case of the men, except as serving to illustrate and enhance what he has to say in regard of the women: it is probable that the men regularly prayed un- covered, and that the aratla was the imitation of this on the part of the women: see Bengel im loc. On the meaning of mpopnredwy (“Speaking under the more immediate influence of the Holy Spirit*), comp. notes on Eph. iv. 11. This order of men (oi Td TMpaTa pepovtes ev Tois AErToupyois Tijs €kkAnoias) is mentioned ina very marked manner in the newly found Ajaxh Tav ’AtooréAwy; see the note of Bryennius, p. 40, and the excursus of Dean Spence, Teaching of the Apostles, p. 135 sqq. Kata kehadns Exwv) ‘ having (any- thing) hanging down from the head,’ scil, ‘ velato capite,’ Vulg., ‘ gahuli- damma haubida,’ Goth., the preposi- tion «kara (with a gen.) having its primary meaning of ‘ desuper,’ ‘deorsum ’ (Kiihner, Gr. § 433. b. m., Winer, Gr. § 47. k; comp. Donalds. Crat. § 182), and conveying the idea of something hanging down from the head, i.e, a veil or similar sort of covering. It appears from the reff. supplied by Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.), and the notes of Grotius and Wetstein,that while the Jews covered the head in prayer, and the Romans, while offering sacrifice, the Greeks prayed uncovered,—but, as it is doubtful whether the use of the veil (tallith) in prayer by the Jews is not a comparatively modern usage (Smith, Dict. of Bible, s. vy. ‘ Veil’), there seems no reason to think that the Apostle was here sanctioning particularly the Greek, as in contra- distinction to the Jewish, usage, but was speaking broadly and generally. Hofmann contends that the Apostle is here referring only to domestic prayer: but to this not only the language (spopntedwy), but the whole tenor of the passage seems distinctly opposed. KaTALOXUVEL THY Kepadryv advrod]| ‘dishonoureth his head ;’ not Christ (ver. 3), but ‘ his head,’ in the ordinary meaning of the word: the adoption of a usage belonging to women, and indicative of subordination to men, would cer- tainly involve dishonour to the man’s head who adopted it; and the more so in the service of prayer, and in the sight of Him who is his proper and true Head, he would be dis- playing a token of a human subordi- nation: ‘profitetur se in terris aliquem supra se principem et rect- 202 IIPOS KOPINOIOY2 ITPOTH. mpocevxyonern 7) Tpopytevovoa akatakahimT@ TH Kepay KaTarryvver THY Keharny avThs’ ev ydp 6 éotw Kal TO adTd TH eEvpypery. El yap od KaTa- 5. adris] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), on very clearly preponderating authority : Rec., éavrijs. orem habere,’ Estius. It does not appear that this was done in Corinth, but it forms the basis for the argu- ment: ‘conditionate loquitur de viro,’ Beng. 5. waca S$ yuvi «.7.A.] ‘but (in contrast to the case of the man) every woman praying or prophesy- ing with her head uncovered, or (perhaps more exactly, as suggested by the previous kata Kepadrijs), wn- veiled :’ second and contrasted con- clusion from ver. 3. On the par- ticiples, see notes on ver. 4, and on the dative of mode and manner (axar. TH Kep,.), Winer, Gr. § 31.7. d, Kiihner, Gr. § 425, 11. There is here some little difficulty, owing to the fact that such praying (if aloud) or prophesying would seem to have been forbidden; see ch. xiv. 34, and comp. I Tim. ii. 12. Perhaps at first the usage, which probably would not have been common, and confined to devotional meetings of a limited and informal nature (contrast ch. xiv. 34), was left unnoticed, until brought into prominence by the utter aratia of an uncovered head. The Apostle is not now concerned with the circumstance of their pray- ing or prophesying, but with the manner and guise in which they did so: ‘quatenus liceat [scil. 7d mpocevxec0at}) Td mpopynrevey] Paulus differt ad cap xiv., nempe extra conventum,’ Beng. KaATALoXUVEL THY KEh. AUTHS] ‘ dis- honoureth her head ;’ ‘her head,’ as before, in its natural sense. To put away from it the mark of the divinely constituted relation of the woman to the man, and of natural modesty, is to do dishonour to the part where the rd mpéroy is violated : yuvairt ye why To KaddTTecOat Kdomos : Cyril, ap. Cram. Cat. év yap €or. «.7.A.] ‘for she is one and the same with a woman that is shaven ;’ the subject of the verse being, as above, maoa yuv)) K.T.A. (i.e. ‘every such woman’), and the generalizing neuter, the predicate corresponding to it; see Winer, Gr. § 27.5, Kiihner, Gr. § 360, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61. 7. 9. The woman that prayed or prophesied without a covering on her head was on a com- plete level with one whose head, whether from grief (Deut. xxi. 12) or disgrace, or some form or other of shamelessness, had been- shaven: numerous exx., more or less illustra- tive, will be found in Wetst. i loc. On the verse generally, see a dis- course by Mede, Works, Vol. 1. p. 76 sqq. (Lond. 1664). 6. el yap od kaTaKand. K.T.A.] ‘for if @ woman is not veiled, or, perhaps more exactly (the od practically coalescing with the verb ; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 2. b, and notes on ch. vii. 9), unveiled, let her also cut close her hair ;’ confirmation (yép) of the last clause of the preceding verse ; if the woman is so lost to the feeling of modesty and decorum that she goes about without a veil, why should she not take a step further, cut close her hair, and affect man’s appear- ance in this particular also (Hamm.)? The imperative expresses logical mi. GF. 203 hod , ‘\ , 0 P > de > ‘ kalvmrerar yury, Kal Kepdobw: ei dé aiaypor yuvaikt 7d Keiparbar 7) EvpacOa, Kataxadvr- téc0w. avip pev yap ovk deter KataxaddmTec Oar 7 ‘\ ta > A b / Om , ‘ e \ tiv Kehadyp, eikav Kat dd€a Ocod Urdpxwv’ 1 yuv7 7. ) yuh) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. omits the article. necessity,—let her do what is the natural outcome of her going un- veiled; see Winer, Gr. § 43. 1. The keipdo@w is undoubtedly middle both in form and meaning (see Kiihner, Gr. § 376. 5), but there seems no reason to consider the associated verbs as in the same voice. The transition fram the reflexive idea of the middle to the receptive idea of the passive (Kiihner, Gr. § 376. 1) is so easy that, in passages such as the present, the association of the two voices is perfectly natural. Hence in the concluding clause of the verse we may regard Evpac@at and kataxkaAunTéoOw as passive. On the mixing up of the forms of the middle and passive voice, see Winer, Gr. § 38. 4. el 8 aloxpodv «.t.A.] ‘ but if it is a shame to a woman to cut close her hair or be shaven (pres.: ‘ undergo the operation ;’ compare Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 1), let her be veiled:’ the minor and conclusion in the simple syllogism. If that to which being unveiled almost logically leads in- volves disgrace, then indeed is there a good reason for a return to the usage of modesty and decorum: emmeéver Secxvis brit 4H avaxddvlis TH tupioes Eoixe* Kal Somep exelyn aicxpdr, o’tw Kal arn, Theoph. 7. dviip wev yap k.7.A, | ‘For aman indeed (i.e. a man contrasted with a woman; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 518. 9) ought not to have his head veiled ;’ confirmatory (yép) of the last clause ‘let her (the woman) be veiled,’ and also introductory of a second reason for the monitory direction of the Apostle; mdAuw érépa airy aitla, ovde yap bri Kepadyy Exer Thy Xpiordv .. GAN bri kad &pxet THs yuvainds, Chrys. As this is a second reason, following upon a first (ver. 3) of great weight and importance, the ov« dpefAer will naturally carry the stronger mean- ing ‘ought not’; it was not a matter of ‘non sit’ (Caly.), but ‘non debet ’ (Vulg.): opp. to Hofmann, who, in arguing for the weaker rendering (‘is not bound’), seems to overlook the weight which the preceding aitla would mentally have in the Apostle’s thoughts. elkay kal 86€a Ocodt bwdpxwv] ‘seeing that he is (by original constitution) the image and glory of God ;’ causal participial clause (Donalds. Gr. § 615) giving the reason why man’s head ought not to be veiled. He was made in the image of God (Gen. ii. 26, mojowpev tvOpwrov Kar’ eixdva juerépay), and, as made in that image and prior to woman’s creation, practically ex- emplified the sovereignty committed to him (Gen. i. 28) by naming all living creatures (Gen. ii. 19). He was also the ‘ glory’ of God as show- ing forth the glory of his Creator, and being His master-work. As the eixay and ddéta (both ideas being in close union), he sets forth the sovereign majesty of Him who made him. To give eixey a wider reference mdvoy ovk opelAct KaAvmTec Oat . 204 IIPOS KOPINOGIOY= IIPOTH. 8 dé dd€a dvipds éotiv. od ydp éoTw avip ek yur- Q aukds, adda yur) e& avdpos* Kal yap ovK exticOy avnp Sia THY yuvatka, dda yuvn dia Tov avdpa. 10 dia trovro ddeiheau 7 yun eLovoiay eyew emt TIS to the moral perfections involved in the idea of the ‘image of God’ (De Wette; comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. p- 127, Transl.) would here be alien to the tenor and subject-matter of the paragraph: ‘vir dicitur imago Dei, quia Deus in illo representatur ; ... gloria Dei, quia Deus in illo glorificatur,’ Estius. On the sub- ordination of the wife to the husband, see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, §§ 305, 323, Vol. m1. p. 271, 298 (ed. 2). 8. ob yap éottv k.T.A.] ‘for man is not of (owt of ) woman, but woman of (out of) man;’ confirmation of the statement that woman is the glory of man by a reference to the origin of woman; Gen. ii. 21 sq. The eiva é« has thus here its primary and proper meaning,—not depend- ence on (Gal. iii. 10, 1 Cor. xii. 16), but origin from,—‘aus dem Manne stammt,’ Ewald; see notes on Gal. ili. 7, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 47. a. Q. Kal yap ovK éxticOn x.T.A.) ‘for man was also not created because of the woman, but woman because of the man:’ further (kat) confirmation (‘ e causa finali,’ Est.) of the general position that woman is the glory of man, and in sub- ordination to him ; the xa‘, as often in the formula, marking the addition of a further and enhancing circum- stance, and the yap standing in co- ordination with the preceding yap in ver. 8; see esp. notes on 2 Thess. iii. 10, and on Phil. ii. 27, where the meaning of the two particles when thus in union (often over- looked or misunderstood) is some- what fully investigated; see also Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 138, Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 642. The article is inserted before yuvatka, as the reference is to the woman alluded to in the text on which the Apostle is basing his statement, viz. Gen. ii. 18; it is omitted in the second clause (4AAa yur? K.T.A.), as ‘woman’ generally is there spoken of; but it is inserted before avpa, as here the same text equally brings before us the man, viz. the first man, in regard of whom God’s merciful sympathy was displayed. On this individualizing use of the article, see Kiihner, Gr. § 461. I, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 3. 6. 10. 814 totto] ‘for this cause,’ viz. because woman is declared by the word of God to derive her origin from man, and to have been created on his account; 5a TatTa Ta To refer the d:a Todro to the last clause of ver. 7 (Est., De Wette) mars the natural sequence: ver. 7 is illustrated by two scriptural statements; from these two statements the 7d dget- Aew (see on ver. 7) is naturally de- duced. ddetrker Hf yuva K.T.A.] ‘ the woman (here considered generically,_the command is for all) ought to have (the sign of) authority resting on her head.’ The explanations of the use of the abstract term in connexion with a purely simple and concrete direction on the part of the Apostle are very numerous. It is, however, wholly unnecessary to discuss them, as the Greek expositors,—to whom in such cipnuéva Gravta, Chrys. Bay ty Se BO. ET. 205 xedhadys Sud Tods dyyéAous. ANY ovTE yur7y xwpis II II, obre yuvh x.7.A.] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., ofre ayhp x.7.A., inverting the two members. a matter we may rightly defer,— unanimously, and apparently with- out any consciousness of any other interpretation, regard éfovclay as rd Tod eLovaid(er Oa: o¥uBorov (Theoph.), or, in other words, as used ‘ per metonymiam ;’ the context supply- ing the obvious and natural inter- pretation. This éfovcla is not the woman’s authority or dignity (Wordsw.),—a very unnatural inter- pretation,—but the man’s, thy Tod avdpds eEouclay Kal Kupidrnta irep bréxerra: (Phot.), that which is the very foundation and basis of the Apostle’s rule and directions. No strictly similar example has been adduced, as the passage in reference to the statue of the mother of Osi- manduas, in Diod. Sic. (Bibl. Hist. I. 47, €xovoay tpeis BaciAelas el rijs kepadjs) refers to sovereignties as acquired or possessed by the person specified,—not, as exercised over her. In Tacitus, Germania, cap. 39, a ‘vinculum’ is spoken of as a ‘ po- testas numinis.’ The passage there- fore must be left to supply its own interpretation. The ancient Ver- sions give no particular help, as they either translate literally (Vulg., Syr., Copt.), or by what is here meant (‘ut veletur caput,’ Eth.; compare Arm.). The simplest form of trans- lation is that of Rev. which (with a slight change) is here adopted. On the meaning of éfovola (‘rightful authority’), compare Cremer, Bibi.- Theol. Worterb.s. v. p. 237. 8a tTotg dyyéAovs] ‘because of the angels;’ scil. aidSounévn, Theophyl.,—having due Tous ayyéAous regard to ‘decency for the Angels’ sake,’ Hooker (Hccl. Pol. vy. 25. 2). The interpretations of this obscure expression are again very numerous. The simplest is the view adopted by the majority of the best expositors, viz. that the Apostle is here referring to the holy angels, deemed both by the Jewish Church (comp. Psalm exxxviii. 1. LXX, Tobit xii. 2, and Philo, de Human. Vol. 1. p. 387 ed. Mang.—where, in regard of the song of Moses, it is said, }v Kkaraxotovew &vOpwmol te Kal Byyedor Aecroupyal ; see Mangey’s note in loc.), and by the early Christian Church (see the quotations from Chrysostom cited by Hooker, 1. c.; add in Ascens. § I, Vol. 1. p. 448, ed. Bened.), to be present in the services of the Church: see Bp. Bull, Serm. xu. Vol. 1. p- 322 (Oxf. 1827), and the striking narrative in Chrysostom, de Sacerd. vi. 4, Vol. I. p. 424 (ed. Bened.), in which the same idea, as to the liturgic presence of the holy angels, is distinctly set forth: comp. also the Liturgy of St Basil (Swainson, Greek Liturgies, p. 77), in the fifth prayer of which, called the etx} ris ceivddov, the presence of the holy angels is solemnly prayed for (3o/noov oi 7H eicdd~ judy eloodov aylwy ayyéAwy yivec8at) as an accessory to the majesty of the service. Traces of this are to be found in nearly all the ancient Liturgies (comp. Swain- son, p. 205, 385, al.), and remains of it in the ‘Therefore with Angels and Archangels, &c.’ of our own service. To refer this expression to holy men (Clem.-Alex.), or rulers of 206 ITIPO2 KOPINGIOY> TPOTA. p) N ¥ 58 \ \ 5) er , 12 dvSpos oure dviip Xwpis yuvarkds év Kupip WOTEP aA g £3 lal yap 1 yurn eK TOV avdpds, OVTwS Kal 6 avynp dia TIS the Church (Ambr., al.),is inconsistent with the lexical use of &yyeAo in the N. T. (see Cremer, Worterb. p. 17); to limit it to guardian angels (Theo- doret), out of harmony with the context; and to regard it as in it- self monitory against tempting the angels (Hofm.), wholly at variance with all our conceptions of these blessed beings as suggested to us by the N. T.; see Estius im loc. The early opinion (Tertull.), that evil or fallen angels may here be alluded to, is admissible as far as the lexical use of &yyeAot is concerned (see notes on ch. vi. 3), but inconsistent with that of of &yyedo, which words where thus used alone (Matth. xiii. 49, xxv. 31, Luke xvi. 22, 1 Cor. xiii. 1, Heb. i. 4, al.) always refer to the holy angels. We therefore so under- stand the words here, and regard the reference to these blessed beings as implying that where they, in all their holy order, were ovAAe:toupy- odytes Kal cuvdotoAoyotytTes (Basil), there, recognition of a divinely con- stituted order was verily to be shown by every reverential worshipper: see Hooker, Hccl. Pol. 1. 16. 4, and comp. Bull, Serm. x11. 2, Vol. 1. p. 318 (Oxford, 1827). An interesting sermon on this text will be found in Bp. Hall, Works, Vol. v. p. 461 sqq. (Oxf. 1837). II. mA yuvy «.7.A.] ‘nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, im the Lord :’ appended cautionary comment, the Av, with its practically adversative force, limiting and placing in its true light the import of the prece- ding verses. On the meaning of mAjyv, see notes on Phil. i. 18, and, ouTE on its approximation in meaning to aAAd, Kiihner, Gr. § 535. 6. 5. If any distinction is to be drawn be- tween the particles, @AAa indicates opposition, owing to something dif- ferent (@AAo) being alleged,—Ahv to something additional (rAéov) being brought into consideration which modifies what has gone before. The two words yuv}) and avip are, as in verses 8 and 9, without the article (see above), though here idiom hardly allows it to be expressed in translation. év Kuplo] ‘in the Lord;’ defining clause, common to the two preceding mem- bers: ‘in the Lord,’ scil. in the Christian sphere, there was no inde- pendence of the sexes; each de- pended on the other, and both on Christ. On this familiar formula, see notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1, and Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 385. Hofmann regards the év Kup‘ as the predication, and the xwpls avdpbs and xwpls yuvaios as limitations of it; but the relations to each other of the sexes generally is clearly the subject-matter, not their relations to Christianity. 12. Gomep yap fh yuvi K.7T.A.] ‘for as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by means of the woman:’ confirmation of the pre- ceding clause by a reference to the fact of the propagation of the race by means of the woman; the first woman, it is true, came out of man (Gen. ii. 21), but it was through her and women generally after her, that men came into existence. It may then be rightly said that each de- pends upon the other. The articles here again come into play, as the reference in the first member is to edn ESy 895 84) 207 yuvatkds’ Ta S€ Tava ex TOD Ocod. ev bplv adrois 13 Kpwvate’ mpérov éotiv yuvatka akatakdduTtov TO Oco mpocedyer Oar; ode 7 vars adr? SiddoKer 14 Deas OTL avynp pev eav Kona, atysia ad’T@ eotu, 14. 0058 7 pvats ad’th] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. prefixes #, and adopts the order ait} 7 picts. the known and historic fact relating to the origin of the woman. Ta St wavta éx Tod Ocod] ‘ but all things are of God ;’ the totality of things,—not man only, and (deriva- tively) woman, but man, woman, and all their relations and interdepend- ences,—come from God as from their true causal fountain and ori- gin. On the 7& mdyra (‘all things collectively’ as distinguished from mdvra ‘all things severally’), see Bishop Lightfoot on Col. i. 16, and * comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 8; and on the meaning of é« in this formula (not here ‘dependence on,’ De W., but ‘origination from’), see notes on ch. viii. I. 13. év typlv avtots xplvare] ‘judge ye in your own selves,’ ‘in suo quisque animo estimate,’ Est. : appeal to the natural feelings of decorum and of propriety; ‘naturam illis decori magistram proponit,’ Caly. Compare the somewhat simi- lar appeal in ch. x. 15. TO ©eG] added to mark, still more dis- tinctly, the irreverence involved in the act. The dative of the person after mpocedxec8a, though common in ordinary Greek, is found only occasionally in the N. T., as here and Matth. vi. 6: the prevailing use of the verb is intransitive; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 423. 8. 14 ot8% vats x.7.A.} ‘doth not even nature itself teach you?’ scil. the appointed order of things, ovots here referring more to the out- ward than to the inward (‘naturale judicium rect rationis,’ Pisc., Mey., al.), the appeal (as the ov3é seems to imply ; comp. Hofm. in loc.) being to the support given to the inward feeling by the light supplied by the general order of nature (comp. Rom. i. 26, xi. 21, 24, James iii. 7) in this particular,—‘ natura, ejusque de de- coro lumen,’ Beng. For a full dis- cussion of the various meanings that have been assigned to ¢vo1s, the student (if necessary) may refer to the long note in Poli Synops. (in loc.) and for the more recent and philo- sophical estimate of the meaning of the word ‘nature,’ Mill, Essays on Religion, p.15; compare Mozley, Serm. vi. p. 122 sqq. btu dviip Bev K.7-A.) ‘that if a man’ (em- phatic, and in contrast with yu) in verse 15) ‘have long hair ;’ the ér here being immediately dependent on diddoxer, and introducing the ob- jective sentence which follows; see Donalds. Gr. § 584, and comp. notes on ch. vii. 26. In some of the an- cient Versions (Vulg. [asin Lachm.]}, Copt.) the 67: appears to be taken in its causal sense, similarly to its usage in ver. 15 (so too Hofm.); but the connexion between diddoKer and the words that follow is obviously much more immediate than between the two members of ver. 15, and the objective or exponential sentence much more easy and natural than a causal sentence, which would leave unexpressed what the teaching of 208 TIPOS KOPIN@GIOYS IIPOTH. \ be a a d0€ 5 ee F. 4 e d 5 4 15 yur” € €aV KONA, OOCA avUTy) €OTW ; OTLY) KOPN) aVTL 16 mepiBodaiov SédoTa1 avrp. nature actually was. On the diffi- culty of settling the meaning of 7: in many passages in the N. T., see notes on ch. ix. 10, and on 1 Thess. i. 3. The word kody (‘comam nu- trire,’ Vulg.) is only used in this passage in the N. T., but is common elsewhere, in both its natural and its metaphorical sense: see exx. in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. Iv. p.1773- On the custom of the Hebrews (men) in regard of wearing the hair (generally short; but see 2 Sam. xiv. 26, Joseph. Antig. vu1. 7. 3), see Smith, Dict. of Bible, Vol. 1. p. 738; on that of the Greeks (at first long in the case of the Spartans, but afterwards almost universally short), and of the Romans (short, after B.c. 300), Smith, Dict. of Antig. s. v. ‘Coma,’ p. 328. In early Christian days short hair was the mark of the Christian teacher, as contrasted with the usual long hair of the heathen philosopher: see Smith, Dict. Chr. Antiq. Vol. I. p. 755. 15. Stu h Kdépn x.7.A.] ‘ because her hair has been given to her for a covering :’ reason why (see above ver. 14) long hair, in the case of the woman, is a glory to her, viz. because it serves as a kind of natural veil (oxérn id ris pioews meropiouevn, Muson, ap. Stob. Floril. 1. 84), the general term mepiBdAatoy (‘ quod cireumjicitur,’ Grimm ; comp. Heb. i. 12) deriving here its more restricted meaning from the context and the general subject-matter of the passage. The prep. av7? (pro- perly ‘in the place which is op- posite,’ Donalds. Gr. § 474. a) is not of very frequent occurrence in St Paul’s Epp. (Rom. xii. 17, Eph. v. 31, LXX, 1 Thess. v. 15, 2 Thess. Ei 8€ tis Soxet dudd- ii. 10); it is here in its common meaning of ‘exchange,’ or ‘ in place of ’ (one thing being set,’ as it were, over against another): see Winer, Gr. § 47. a, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 14. 1. It is derived from the Sanscr. anti (over against), and so connected with the Latin ‘ante,’ the Gothic ‘and,’ and the German ‘ant-’ and ‘ent-;’ see Curtius, Griech. Etym. § 204, p. 186 (ed. 2), Kiihner, Gr. § 42. 1. On the perf. Sé507a, as pointing to the permanence of the particular order of nature referred to, see Winer, Gr. § 40. 4. 16. Et &8€ tig So0Ket x.7.A.] ‘ But if anyone seemeth to be contentious, our answer is, &c.:’ closing sentence, adding to the foregoing arguments the weighty practical argument de- rived from Apostolical authority and general ecclesiastical practice. Lachmann connects this verse with the following paragraph: Tisch. makes it a separate paragraph ; Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (so also De Wette, Meyer, Hofm.) more naturally regard it as the closing words of the preceding subject: ‘perspicit Paulus nonnulla posse excipi; sed ea reprimit auctoritate,’ Beng. The meaning of 6oxe is somewhat doubtful: it may refer (a) to the opinion of others,— ‘videtur contentiosus esse,’ Vulg. (Syr. omits),—and may point to the case of a man bringing counter- arguments against what has been alleged (founded, as they might be, upon recognized exceptions, Nazar- ites, &c.; see Smith, Dict. of Bible, p- 739), and so having the appear- ance of being—contentious. Or it may refer (b) to the opinion of the subject, ‘thinketh to be’ (Copt.), Ale thy 86, : V9. 209 i ¢ , > ¥ VELKOS eivat, NBELS TOLAUTHV our Pevav OUK e€Xopev, SOA 4 * ere , a A ovoe at exkynotat TOU Ocov, There are grave dis- *) = ie € ‘a eniaies on Some pore Tovto de 7 apayyéh\wv OUK €TALVW E7 bration of the Lord’s Supper, and they bring judgments upon you. 17. mapayyéAAwv odk exava) The reading is somewhat doubtful. Lachm. and Treg. read rapayyéAdw od erawéey with good, but, as it would seem, slightly inferior authority. The uncial evidence is much broken up by corrections; and one important witness [B] is practically silent, having the reading rapayyéAAwy ob« éxaway, which obviously might be claimed by either side. The internal argument that the indic. rapayyéAAw would seem more likely to be a correction of the participle than conversely (see Tisch.) distinctly adds to the preponderance in favour of the text: so Rec., Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort (but with margin). ‘wishes to be’ (Arm., Zth.), scil. is resolved on being contentious, ‘certare pergit,’ Estius. On the whole, when we consider the tone of forbearance mingled with Apostolic authority that is clearly to be re- cognized in so many portions of this Epistle (consider the ovx érawd in ver. 17, and comp. ver. 2) we in- cline to (a) and regard it as xara pelwow Aeyduevov: see notes on Phil. iii. 4. On the slight break between the protasis and apodosis, see Winer, Gr. § 66. 1. a, Buttm. Gr. N. T. p. 338. mets TOLAvTHY cvviberav otk Exopev] ‘we have no such custom :’ clearly, of allow- ing women to be uncovered, and especially when praying. The early expositors (Chrys., Ambr., Theoph. 1,—not, however, Theodoret) refer this to piAdveixos elva:, an interpre- tation that seems singularly im- probable, and is in no way required by the jets (Mey.). The pronoun may refer simply to the Apostle himself (De W., compare Theoph.) but, more likely, includes other teachers whom the Apostle knew to be of the same mind with him- self; ‘doctores vestri, ex Hebreis,’ Beng., or simply, ‘we Apostles,’ Estius 1, Osiander, al. However taken, it would be equally strange for the Apostle to state that neither he himself nor he with others had the habit of being contentious. The most factious of Corinthians could hardly have supposed it: comp. Hofm. im loc. This verse is used by Bp Andrewes as the text for a sermon on the duty of keeping Easter; Serm. Vol. 1m. p. 404 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.). 17-34. Correction of the disorders that had taken place in connexion with the Lord’s Supper. Totro 8 mwapayyéAAov «.7.A.] ‘Now iw giving you this charge I praise you not:’ transition to the subject that now calls for the Apostle’s especial notice, standing as it does in closest connexion with the matter of de- corum in their religious assemblies. The rovro will thus refer, not to what follows (Chrys., Beng., al.), which, in such a transitional clause as the present would hardly be natural, but to what precedes,—‘ in giving you this charge about the veiling of your women, and now passing to another and graver sub- ject, I do not praise you (as in ver. 2), that when you come together, it is for the worse and not for the P 210 IPOS KOPINOGIOYS . ITPOTH. OTL OvK Eis TO Kpetamov adda Eis TO HOGOV oUV- lal ‘ a 18 épyeoe. mpatov pev yap ovvepxopevov tuav ev > / > 4, , > J “A ec , 2 exkr\nola axkovw oxlopata ev vu wmdpyew, Kal 18. éy ekkdAnoia] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., év rij éxxAnatg. better.’ The verb mapayyéAAew has here, as appy. everywhere else in the N. T., its secondary meaning of ‘jubere,’ the primary and more usual meaning being ‘ nuntium per- ferre’ (Grimm) : see exx. in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. v. p. 222 (ed. Hase and Dind.), and comp. notes ont Tim.i. 3. In regard of the forms kpeiooov and jooov there is no doubt, the evidence against the Attic form being here distinctly pre- ponderant ; comp. Winer, G7. § 5. I. 16 (Moulton). elg TO Kpetooov k.T.A.] ‘that ye come together not for the better but for the worse;’ not for edification ST. ovK and spiritual improvement, but for the reverse. The é7: is not causal (Hofm.) but relatival, not, however, without some tinge of that explana- tory force which we may sometimes observe in its use in the objective sentence ; see notes on ch. ix. 10, and comp. Beza 7m loc. 18. mpGtov péev yap «.7.A.] ‘For first of all when you come together in (the) church :’ specially confirmatory illustration of the justice of the preceding comment, the mp@rov mev (not followed by any émeira 5€) being designed to call full attention to the ground which the Apostle had for the ov« érawad (comp. ver. 22) of ver. 17; mpd yap andvtTwy twav exeivo aiti@uot, Theo- dorus. The mp@rov wey will thus really be without.any truly defined ‘in the second place,’ except what may be implied in the introduction of the next subject,—the disorders . connected with spiritual gifts (ch. xii.-xiv.) ; but such an omission is by no means without precedent (comp. Rom. i. 8, iii. 2; and see Winer, Gr. § 63. e. y), and, in a passage like the present, in which the Apostle is speaking of an abuse of a very serious nature (consider ver. 29, 30), is especially natural. To make ver. 20 the introduction of the second subject (Winer, De W., al.) is open to the gravest objections : it not only traverses the almost certainly resumptive (ody) reference of verse 20 to the present verse, but (as is plainly admitted by De W.) disposes of a subject (the par- ties and party spirit at Corinth) especially prominent in the Apostle’s thoughts (comp. ch. i. 10 sq.) in two short verses, and almost without even implied reproof. If, however, the party spirit is first mentioned as the root-principle of their various disorders, and then exemplified in the Lord’s Supper, the connexion is simple and natural, and the re- lation of ver. 20 to the present verse just what the repetition of the cvvepxouevwy and the resumptive nature of the ody would lead us to expect. év é€xkAnota]) This expression may be loosely rendered, as above, ‘in (the) church,’ but must be understood as implying what, our more familiar ‘in church’ would convey to a modern reader; the omission of the article leaving exkAnoia with a general, and here semi-local, force (comp. émi 7d aird, ver. 20): see Bengel in loc., and ALA 8, 19. 211 —~ ‘ ‘ a Mépos Te TMuoTEvw. Set yap Kal aipéces ev div 19 evar, wa ot SdKmor Pavepol yévwvtar ev dpiv. comp. Winer, Gr. § 50.a. Itis thus not necessary to regard the word as here definitely implying ‘an as- sembly,’ but as retaining its ordi- nary meaning (Syr., Copt., Ath. (‘domo Christianorum ’}, Arm.) under the semi-local aspect above alluded to. akovw oxic- pata «K.7.A.] ‘I hear that divisions exist among you :’ principal state- ment, to which the preceding clause prefixes the defining circumstances of time and place; the divisions were shown not only in regard of expressions and sentiments (comp. ch. i. 10), but even in the outward order of their solemn religious as- semblies. Of the existence of these dissensions the Apostle expresses himself as continuing to hear, the present (a4xodw) marking ‘a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues’ (Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. c, Bernhardy, Synt. p- 370), and the brdpxew the well- defined existence (‘wirklich seyn,’ Kiihner, Gr. § 355) of that which is spoken of. These oxlouara did not involve separations from the Church, but were dissensions that existed within it; comp. Theodoret. Kal pépos Te mroteto] ‘and I partly believe it ;’ the accus. of the quantitative object to which the action extends (see notes on ch. x. 33) 3 €k mEépous uuikpod moredw, Chrys. The Apostle expresses his general belief in what was told him, other- wise he would not have made the statement in ver. 17; but, whether from the nature of the accounts, or the character of the informants, he is careful to say that he only be- lieves a part of what he has heard: ‘ miti sermone utitur,’ Beng. 19. Set yap alpécers «.7.A.] ‘For there must also be parties among you ;’ scil. definite aggregations into factions and parties, —this latter word more exactly defining the results and developments of the oxicuara; see notes on Gal. vy. 20. The xa) is thus partly copulative, partly ascen- sive (see notes on Phil. iv. 12); it marks that which, by the very ap- pointed order of things (5¢?), will be found with the divisions, and into which they will have insensibly de- veloped ; tas [aipéceis] tay TootTwy oxioudrwy, Theoph. The word has thus here no dogmatic reference (vd Tas tay Soyudrwy, Chrys.) such as would be implied in the ordinary use of the word ‘ heresies’ (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 1), but, as in Acts xxviii. 22, rijs aipeoews Tavrns (in ref. to Christians), points to the parties into which Corinthian Church-life was tending to crystallize: see notes on Tit. iii. 10. In the de there is nothing fur- ther implied than this,—that, there being such divisions, it is the divine purpose that they should subserve to the end specified in the next clause: Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, u. 4, Vol. 1. p. 420 (Transl.). tva ol Sdéxipor «.7.A.) ‘that they that are approved may be made manifest among you ;’ that the nobler spirits may become known and recognized among you; foreordered purpose— not merely the &Baois (Theophyl., comp. Chrys )—of the existence of the aipéceis among the Corinthians. The divine alchemy would disclose what was tested and genuine, what was alloyed and’ adulterate: see Wordsw. in loc, On the deep questions connected with this sub- ject, see Rothe, Theol. Ethile, § 479. P2 212 IIPOS KOPINGIOY= SPST, 4 > e A ae ‘\ - ee, 3 » 20 Yuvepyopevav ovvy vpov €ml TO avTO OvVK EOTLY 21 Kupiakov Setrvov aye ExaoTos yap TO toLov 1sq. Vol. m1. p. 35 sqq. (ed. 2). Lachm. and Westc.and Hort insert in brackets cad before of 8éxiuot. The «at has certainly fair support, but is so likely to have been inserted to bring out and emphasize the associated words, that there seems hardly ground even for the limited recognition of the reading above specified. 20. Zvvepxowévov otv tydv K.7.d.] ‘When then ye (thus) come together to one place ;’ more definite specification by means of the re- flexive oy (see notes on Gal. iii. 5, Phil. ii. 1) of the disorders which took place in their religious assem- blies. The ézi 7d aird, as usual, marks the idea of locality, and is in effect almost equivalent to the év éxxAnota of ver. 18. On the use and meaning of this formula, see notes on ch. ‘yi. 5. Kuptakov Seitvov dayeiv] ‘it is not to eat the Lord’s supper;’ the emphasis, as the position of the at- tribute before the subst. clearly in- dicates (Winer, Gr. § 59. 2, Kiihner, Gr. § 606. 1) resting on the word kupiakdy: owing to their disorderly conduct it was no more than an idiwrikdy deirvoy (Chrys.). The verb éorw is thus to be taken in its usual sense, the clause preceding cvvepx. oty juay acting as a quasi-subject, and being in fact equivalent to an expressed tovro, ‘hoc non est,’ Beza; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 2. rem.: so in effect, though paraphrastically, Syr. (‘non sicut justum est die Domini nostri comeditis’), and, as it would seem from the tenor of the sentences which he puts in con- trast with it, Chrysost. i loc. The other Vy. (except Aith. which has a mere gloss) do not supply any 2, oa OUK C€OTLV clue to the meaning they ascribed to ov« éorw, The rendering ‘non licet’ (Meyer, Hofm.) is gramma- tically permissible (see exx. in Kiih- ner, Gr. § 473. 3, and in Ast, Lex. Plat. Vol. 1. p. 622), but does not so well harmonize with the confirma- tory sentence which follows, the ob- ject of which is to show how, by the very nature of the acts and circum- stances, it could only be regarded as an idiwrikdy Setmrvoy, It appears to have been the custom in this early period for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to have followed (after the example of the first insti- tution), and not to have preceded (Chrysost.), the Agape (Jude 12) or Love-Feast: see Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. 1. p. 24, Bingham, Antiq. xv. 7.7, Augusti, Handb. d. Arch. Vol. I. p. 499, and Smith, Dict. Chr. Antiq. Vol. 1. p. 40. A description of the Agape will be found in Tertull. Apol. cap. 39, but it contains nothing from which we can certainly infer whether, at that time, the Lord’s Supper preceded or followed it. 21. &kaotos yap x-7T.A.] ‘For each one in his eating taketh before (other) his own supper ;’—his own supper, in contrast to the kupiaxdy detrvoy just specified, which he had professed to come to eat; confirma- tion of the preceding statement, that it verily was no eating of a kupiaxdy deirvoy, but simply of an idiwtiKdby detrvov. The proof of this lay in the patent fact that each one (‘de multis dicitur,’ Grot.), whether rich or poor, began eating his own supper, and never waited for the rest (ver. 33). It was thus no kowdy detrvoy as it ought to have been (Chrys.), but a mere eating, it may be in the XI. 20, °21; 22. 213 A , > a Lal Va A “~ Setrvov mpoapBave ev To payer, kal Os ev Trewa, a A , % ‘ | Aad > ¥ > ‘ > 06 Os dé peOver. pur) yap oikias ovK Exete els TH EoOiew 22 kal mivew; THS EexK\ynolas TOU Ocod KaTa- same place, but not at the same time, and with those characteristics which marked the Blessed Supper, of which this had become a travesty. Chrysostom, Theophylact and others appear to limit the Exacros to the rich. What follows, in which each class is specified, seems to imply no such limitation ; each one had begun to adopt the bad habit of not waiting for others. Kal 8s pév qeive k.T.A.] ‘and one hungers, and another is drunken;’ the natural result; the one who has brought but little, and might, at what ought to have been a common table, have re- ceived somewhat from a better-sup- plied neighbour, is hungry, while another who has brought much, takes of that abundance, and becomes drunken. The word ueévew has here its regular meaning (Matth. xxiv. 49, Acts ii. 15, 1 Thess. y. 21): with one it was amAnotla and hunger; withthe other it was downright drunkenness; eis uéOnv e&eBatvoy, Chrys. 22. pt yap olklag k.7.A.] ‘ Verily, have ye not houses to eat and drink in?’ emphatic, and almost indig- nant, question (‘interrogando urget,’ Beng.), the ydp, as always in such cases, losing in the almost indignant question somewhat of its usual con- firmatory or argumentative force, but still retaining clear traces of that ‘sane pro rebus comparatis’ (Klotz) which is the fundamental meaning of this compound particle ; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 8. c, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 247, and notes on Phil. i. 18. Here the reference is to the state of things just described, and to the censure implied in it; ‘matters being thus, the question well may be asked whether &c.:’ META TWOAAOD Aoimdy TOD BumodD Thy emlAntw éemdyet, Chrys. Inthe wy— ovx the mw) expresses the question, the od« belongs to the verb, and coalasces with it so as to form one idea,—‘ surely ye are not without houses &c.,’ the 4} as usual point- ing to a negative reply: see Winer, Gr. § 57. 3. b, Kiihner, Gr. 587. 11, and notes on ch. ix. 4. Hj tHs éxKAnolag x.7.A.] ‘or de- spise ye the Church of God ;’ alter- native supposition, and the true one; they had houses, and yet came to the place where God was worshipped,and behaved in the manner complained of. They despised, and showed their want of reverence for, alike the place set apart for the worship of God (comp. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. I2. 5), and the congregation that assembled there (comp. ver. 18), by not duly sharing in the common meal which was preparatory to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper: domep yap Td kuptakdy Setrvoy idiwricdy moveis, otTw Kal tov Témoy mdALy, ds oikig rH éxkAnola Kexpnucvos, Chrys, In the second portion of the two- membered sentence the uh exovres does not mean ‘those who have not houses to eat and drinkin’ (Alf.),— a possible, but singularly flat ren- dering,—but, in harmony with the use of of €xovres as designating ‘ the wealthy ’ (Eurip. Suppl. 240, Alcest. 57; see Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. m1. p- 2625, ed. Hase),—‘ the poor (rods névnras, Theoph.) those who had little or nothing to bring to these common feasts, and who, conse- 214 IIPOZ KOPINOIOYS TIPOTH. F . dpoveire, Kal KaTtawoyvveTe Tovs py ExovTas; TL »” r al r ELT Vw ; ETAWEeTW Vas; EV TOUTW OUK ETrade. 5 A A / °. A lal £ aA A , 23 €yo yap mapédaBov aro Tov Kupiov, 6 Kat mapé- 22. elrw duiv]) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority : Rec., tuiv etre, quently, hungered (ver. 21): s0 Winer, Gr. § 64. 5. wl tuiv elarw; «.7.A.] ‘ What am I to say to you? am TI to praise you? In this I praise you not:’ deliberative subjunctive,—in the second, as well as in the first clause. It is somewhat difficult to decide whether ev rotrw is to be joined with ovk erawéow, or with what follows. As ver. 2 seems clearly to imply that praise was, in the Apostle’s mind, due generally to the Corinthians, in regard of their observance of Chris- tian usages and mapaddéces, and as this particular case was distinctly specified as an exception (ver. 17), that position of év to’tm is to be preferred in which the words would have the greatest emphasis. If this be correct, the connexion with the last member rather than with the words which precede is here to be preferred: so Goth., Adth., Arm., and among recent editors, Tisch., Westc. and Hort. The connexion with what follows seems also to point the same way ; ‘in this certainly I praise you not, for I received of the Lord a very different wapdédoots.’ 23. éy® yap tapéAaBov «.T.A.] ‘For I recewed of the Lord ;’ con- firmatory reason for the distinct ev TovUT® ovK erave just preceding ; the eyw slightly marking the personal element in the solemn statement (comp. notes on ch. vii. 28), and so the authority of the communication (arb T@y KupiwTépwy TY Adyoy bpatvel, Chrys.), and the aad rod Kuplov speci- ally calling attention to the source from whence the Apostle received it. St Paul might have said simply mapéAaBov (ch. xv. 1, 3, Gal. i. 9, | Phil. iv. 9), leaving it undefined from whom or under what circumstances he received that which he states. On the other hand, he might have said mapéAaBov map tod Kupiov (Gal. i. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1), in which case he would have specified dis- tinctly that the communication came directly from the Lord (‘ apud Apo- stolum a Domino,’ Donaldson, Gr. § 485.a; comp. id. Crat. § 177), that it was, so to say, in His posses- sion (Winer, Gr. § 47. b, mapa), and that He communicated it; see Kiihner, Gr. § 440. a. 2. Instead of a either of these forms of expression, — the Apostle chooses a middle form, — viz. amd Tov Kuplov, by which he marks quite plainly the whence (comp. Hofm. i loc.) of the com- munication, but, in a wider and more general sense (Winer, Gr. § 47. b, amd, Kiihner, Gr. § 430), and without necessarily implying (though it does not exclude it) direct personal com- munication. On the distinction between amd and apd, see notes on Col. iii. 24. This is all that strictly erammatical considerations suggest : it is, however, scarcely doubtful (1) from the very insertion of the words under consideration, and (2) from = | the correlating «cat in the clause that follows (0 kal mapédwxa), that the - Apostle distinctly sets forth our Blessed Lord as the source from which the rapadoo1s emanated which he here communicates ; see Hofmann XI. 23, 24. 915 Swoxa viv, OT. 6 Kvpros “Inoods &v tH vuKrl 7 oev Kal elirev mapedideto ehaBev aprov, Kal ebyapirTyoas exha- 24 Tovro pov éotiv TO capa 7d 7p 24. «lrev Todro] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds after efrev the words AdBere, payere. 7) bwtp duav) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. (with marg.), Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority : Rec. adds KrAduevor. in loc. & Kal trapéSoxKa) ‘which I also delivered wnto you: ‘not only did I receive it, but I took care to deliver it ;’ ‘ hoc ipsum quod a Domino accepi,’ Estius. An im- portant sermon on this text by Bishop Jewel will be found in his Works, p. 1 sqq. (Parker Soc.). Stu «.7.A.] ‘ how that, or to wit that, the Lord Jesus :’ the 67: having here a sort of sub-explanatory force, and specifying the nature of the action; see notes on ch. ix. 10. The name "Incods (‘ considerate additur,’ Beng.) seems here appended in harmony with the historical, and, so to say, documentary, tinge of the clauses which follow. Seto] ‘in which he was being be- trayed;’ the imperf. marking the action which had in fact practically commenced (comp. Matth. xxvi. 16, Luke xxii. 6), and is here represented as going on up to the time of its actual consummation: see Kiihner, Gr. § 383. 1. It was on the night in which His betrayal was being com- pleted that the Lord instituted the feast of His mercy and love: comp. Hofmann in loc. The form mapedidero is retained with very greatly preponderating uncial au- thority. A few similar instances are found (Matt. xxi. 33, Mark xii. 1, Luke xx. 9, Acts iv. 35): see Tischendorf, Prolegom. iv. 3, p. 124 (Leipz. 1884). 24. TOUTS pov eoTl Td Goya) 1 Tapedt- ‘This is my body:’ ‘this broken bread is (sacramentally) my body.’ In these few, simple, and yet almost boundlessly discussed, words, it here seems plain (1) that the roiro can refer to nothing else than the bread, or rather small loaf, which our Lord took, and, after He had given thanks (temporal participle), broke; the neuter pronoun being used (in accordance with the known general- izing character of the neuter : comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 5) as best express- ing not merely the bread, but the whole antecedent matter and action, the bread taken and, after thanks- giving, broken; (2) that éorly can mean nothing, more or less, than ‘is,’ the particular nature of the identity depending upon the circum- stances and the context. Now as the blessed body was there present, as yet unbroken, the éorly could not have been understood to refer to material identity,—identity gud sub- stance, but it may, in part, have been understood then, and, certainly, is to be understood now, as imply- ing a real sacramental identity, so that the faithful do verily and indeed receive the spiritual food of the broken body and poured out blood of the Lord; the bread and cup being ‘causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of His body and blood _ ensueth,’ Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 67. 5: see also the still stronger language of Cyril 216 TIPO KOPINOGIOY> HP OVE: e lal lal a A 25 Up“@v* TOUTO TroLEtTE Els THY EuNV avayrvnow. woav- ‘\ \ lal Tws Kal TO ToTHpLoy peTa TO SeuTVHTM, héywv ~ \ , € \ , > A > ~ Tovto TO worypiov y Kaun StabyKn eat ev TO (Hierosolym.), Catech. xxii. p. 27% (Transl.). Lastly, sov, though its position might at first seem to suggest it, is not emphatic, but simply en- clitic ; the exx. in the N. T. being numerous in which the gen. of the personal pronouns is placed before the governing noun without any emphasis being thereby implied: see Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. rem. I. tay] ‘which is for you ;’ for your salvation and spiri- tual life ;’ ‘ nervosa sententia,’ Beng.; comp. John vi. 51, where (according to the best reading) tmep tis Tov «xéomov (wis stands in similar gram- matical and energetic parallelism. This short, but most comprehensive form of expression draws its full meaning from the éckAagey above: it was brép tua@y by being broken (on the cross), as the bread was symboli- cally broken in the sacrament. On the use of trép in doctrinal passages, see notes on Gal. ili. 13. Tovro Troteite k.T.A.] ‘do this (pre- sent; 7 e. continually thus take bread, give thanks, and break it) in remembrance of me ;’ the possessive pronoun being here taken objec- tively, ‘in memoriam mei,’ but with- out any implied emphasis (Edwards): compare ch. xy. 31, Rom. xi. 31, xv. 14, and Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. If any special emphasis had been de- signed, the personal pronoun would obviously have been repeated in its full form, and placed at the end of the clause. These words are found in the holy narrative as given by St Luke (ch. xxii. 19), but do not appear in St Matthew and St Mark. To render the words ‘ sacrifice this,’ A < s TO O1rép in accordance with a Hebraistic use of worety in this sense in the LXX (Exod. xxix. 39, Lev. ix. 7, al.; see Schleusn. Lex. Vet. Test. 8. v.), is to violate the regular usage of ro:ety in the N. T., and to import polemi- cal considerations into words which do not in any degree involve or sug- gest them. On the use of ovety in the place of verbs of a more restricted meaning, see Kiihner, on Xenoph. Mem. iii. 8. 2. 25. doatTwos Kal Td TroTT/pLov k.7.A.} ‘In like manner also the cup, after they had swpped ;’ scil. he took, gave thanks, and gave to them, the last-mentioned verb being latent in ver. 24, though obviously implied by the context. The words peta 7d Sermvjoa (not ‘ postquam cenavit’ Vulg., but ‘ccenaverunt”’ Syr., Aith., or ‘ coenatum est,’ Aug. : ‘after supper,’ Copt., Goth., Arm.), here specially added (‘ facto transitu ad majora et ultima,’ Beng. on Luke xxii. 20), are only found in St Luke, but are here studiously reproduced, as it was the especial object of the Apostle to emphasize the distinction between the Lord’s Supper and the ordinary evening meal: comp. ver. 20 sq. The eating of the bread originally formed a part of the com- mon meal (consider Matth. xxvi. 26, Mark xiv. 22, éo@lovtwy airév), and may still have so continued; but the cup was certainly afterwards. On the 7d worhpiov, see notes on ch. x. 16. 4 Katy?) S1a67Kn éotly «.7.A.] ‘is the new covenant (made to be so) in my blood ;’ the éoriy, not found in St Luke, here separating the 7 Kawy d:a0q«n from wae G5; 20: 217 lal ‘ €u@ aipati TodTo Tovetre, GodKis eav Tivyte, eis Tv €unv avapvnow. dodkis yap éav éobinre Tov 26 25. dadnis édv} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Weste. and Hort, both here and in ver. 26, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. ty, the év 7@ dup aluari, and leaving this latter clause as an appended explan- ation of how the cup was the new covenant: it was so, in and by the Redeemer’s blood, and of that blood the wine in the cup was the sacra- mental manifestation ; see Hofmann in loc. That, however, it is the presence of the éorly, and not the absence of the article (Hofm.) which marks the dissociation of the two members of the clause, may correctly be maintained; such an expression as diahKn ev aluart being possibly, like wiotis év TG Kupiw (see notes on Eph. 1. 15), not grammatically inad- missible, esp. in the N. T.; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2. In regard of the meaning of the éorly in this and the preceding verse, it seems proper to say, that the contention that the shade of meaning borne by the verb in the former clause must be the same as that borne by it in this clause, is not consistent with accu- rate principles of interpretation. In each case the shade of meaning must be derived from the associated words. Here it stands in connexion with a substantive bearing an abstract meaning; there, with a substantive having a material mean- ing. Such degree of identity as is in each case admissible under the specifications of the context is dis- tinetly implied, but neither more nor less. Interpretation must not be warped by controversy. TovTo toveite «.T.A.] ‘do this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me :’ peculiar to this narrative, the Touro moeire being used just in the same manner, and with the same reference to the acts performed, as in ver. 24. This todro the Apostle specially says was to be done, when- soever, after their common meal, they drank of this sacramental cup. To refer dadxis eay mivnre to every coming together at a social meet- ing, of which drinking formed a part (Hofm.), is a very unnecessary and improbable extension of the words, and the contention that the mivnre cannot have as its understood object- accusative the foregoing 7d rorhpioy, wholly undemonstrable ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 597. 2.6, and the numerous instances there given of this very common form of brachylogy. What the Apostle wishes to press is, that whenever the common meal passed into the sacramental, the ordinances which he here gives were to be reverently observed. On the use of éay for &y, probably a peculiarity of the later popular language, see Winer, Gr. § 42. 6. rem. For a sermon on the end and object of the Lord’s Supper, see Farindon, Serm. xxvi. Vol. m. p. 71 sqq. (Lond. 1840). 26. da0dKig yap «.7.A.] ‘For as often as ye eat this bread:’ con- firmatory clause, characteristically appended by the Apostle, even to his Master’s own words, to bring home to readers that it verily was an dvd- pvnots of the Lord ; see Chrysost. in loc. Whether this confirmatory clause was derived from the revela- tion of the Lord (ver. 23: comp. Hofm.) or from the Apostle’s own spiritual reflection, must remain a 218 IIPOS KOPINGIOY> ITPOTH. apTov TOUTOY Kal TO TOTHpLOV TivyTEe, Tov BavaTov 27 tov Kupiov katayyéAXete, dypt ov EhOn. Gare Os av 26. 7d worhpiov) So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rovro. In the words that follow, &xp: (Rec., Lachm., Treg., Rev., &xpis) has preponderating authority; and of €A@) (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort) greatly preponderating authority: Rec., Rev., ob ty Ep. matter of individual opinion. The uiptoy rovrovy implies the bread, broken, blessed, and offered as indi- cated in the divine words just recited. The doctrinal importance of the kat 7) Torhpiov miynte, aS against com- munion in one kind, is distinctly felt, and even, to a certain extent, ad- mitted (‘licet expressior sit repre- sentatio mortis dominice in utraque specie separatim sumpta ’), by Estius im loc. Tov OdvaTov K.T.A.| ‘ ye do proclaim the Lord’s death ;’ not merely ‘ ye shew,’ Auth., but, as St Paul’s use of the word seems clearly to imply (Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. ia, Ak. D4 eens eb key Gold. 28), ‘ ye proclaim,’ Rey. (‘ annuntia- tis,’ Vulg., Copt., Arm.; ‘ commem- oratis,’ Syr.), with reference not merely to a making known (‘ gak- annjdith,’ Goth.) by acts and per- sonal manifestation (see Farindon, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 109 sq.), but by word and utterance. Whether this was by the solemn utterance of some words on the part of the ministrant or recipients, or other- wise, we know not; but the choice of the word seems clearly to imply something more than a mere ‘ repre- sentatio’ by acts and ceremonial: consider Exod. xiii. 8 (in reference to the Passover), kat avayyedcis TO vig cov év TH Nmepa exelyn, A€yar, «.7.A., and compare Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc. It is scarcely necessary to add that not only the preceding yep, but the whole tenor of the passage, precludes the imperatival rendering, adopted, or regarded as possible (Neand.), by a few exposi- tors. axpi_ od EAOn] ‘until He come ;’ until the blessed Advent, when the Lord Himself will be present, and the redeemed will par- take with their Lord of the new Supper in the kingdom of the Father; see Matth. xxyi. 29, and compare Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part 1. § 84, p. 191 (Transl.). No inference can properly be drawn from these words as to any deliberate expectation, on the part of the Apostle, of a speedy return of the Lord. Hope may have often made what was longed for seem nigh, and may have given its tinge to passing expressions, but when the subject was definitely entertained (2 Thess. li. I sq.), then it becomes clear that the Apostle, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, uses a language perfectly incompatible with any such alleged expectations - see notes o2 1 Tim. vi. 14, and on 1 Tim. iv. 15. The remarks of Messner (Lehre der Apostel, p. 287), though the writer leans to the popular view, are worthy of atten- tion. The insertion of & (Rec.) would tend to represent the éAdeiv as conditioned and doubtful (‘& semper, quod esse aut fieri dicatur, id ad aliquam conditionem, a qua hoc pendeat, revocat,’ Klotz), whereas, in the text, it is regarded as expected and unconditioned ; see ma 27. 219 , eoxbin tov dptov % mivy 7d ToTHpiov ToD Kupiov av- Lal ‘ nw 9 nw akiws, EvoXos EOTAL TOV TOMATOS KAL TOV alLaTos TOU 27. tv kprov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds tovrov. In the last clause the rood before afuaros is maintained by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority : Rec. omits. Hermann, Partic. &, p. 113 Sqq-s Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p. 99, but observe that the particle is not con- nected with ¢lva: (Klotz), but with avd ; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 186. On the distinction between &xp: and meéxpt, see note on 2 Tim. ii. 9, and on the form with the added s (%xpi, "Artixas* &xpis, “EAAnvixas, Meeris), Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 231. 27. Sore] ‘So then, Consequently :’ consequence (‘éore consecutionem alicujus rei ex antecedentibus sig- nificat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 771) flowing from the preceding clause, but stated in the form of a simple logical fact; as we proclaim the death of the Lord when we partake of this Supper, it is clear that he that partakes unworthily proclaims that death unworthily, and so be- comes guilty in regard of the tokens of that death,—the broken body and poured out blood; he receives, but so receives that he profanes. On the use of éo07re with the indicative, see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and comp. Kihner, Gr. § 586. The distinction between Sore and Gp’ ody is noticed above in notes on ch. vii. 38. 4 wlvyn) ‘or drink;’ not ‘and drink,’ Syr., Copt., Aith., Auth.,—a translation not only erroneous, but ‘detrimental to the significance of the warning. Unworthy and irreverent partaking, whether of the one ele- ment or the other, involved the guilt of which the Apostle is about to speak,—guilt in regard of the whole blessed sacrament: hence tod ow- that follows. patos Kal Tod aluaros in the clause That no polemical use (comp. Est.) can be made of this %, ; is perfectly clear: if partaking of either element unworthily involves guilt in regard of both, it cannot be inferred, with any soundness of logic, that worthily partaking of only one element is equivalent to worthily partaking of both. Un- worthy participation in regard of one particular involves guilt in re- gard of the whole: worthy participa- tion in regard of one particular is limited to that particular: it cannot include a proclaiming of the Lord’s body, when such proclaiming is dis- tinctly said to involve two par- ticulars : see also above, notes on ver. 26. avalos] ‘wn- worthily,’ scil. ‘in a manner not befitting the solemn nature and sig- nificance of the act,’ ‘aliter quam dignum est tanta mysteria tractari,’ Beza: a studiously general form of expression, designed to include not simply the particular form which unworthy participation now assumed among the Corinthians (see ver. 29), but every form in which the mean whereby the body of Christ is re- ceived and eaten (see Article xxvm1.), viz. ‘a lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ,’ is not present and operative. The use of this general word rather than of any other more precise term is in itself full of godly admonition. Though it refers pri- marily to the character of the act (Hofm.) rather than to that of the 220 28 Kupiov. actor (comp. Syr., ‘and is not worthy of it’), the latter cannot be excluded. The character of the act would certainly reflect to a considerable extent the character of the actor: comp. Calvin 7m loc. Evoxos Eotatk.T.A.] ‘shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord ;’ scil. ‘ of profaning the body and the blood,’ ‘ violati corporis et sanguinis Domini’ (Jerome),—the gen. with €voxos marking, here and James ii. 10, the thing in regard of which, or by the violation of which, the guilt was contracted. In the remaining instances in the N. T. this adjective is used with the gen. in reference to (a) that to which, or by which, the subject évéxera:; Heb. ii. 15, SovAeias: (b) the charge; Mark iii. 29, aiwvlov auaprjmaros, comp. 2 Mace. xiii.6; (c) the punish- ment; Matth. xxvi. 11, Mark xiy. 64, Gavdrov. Of these four usages, viz. that in the text and the three just specified, the first and second are not found in classical Greek, and the third only occasionally,— the dative, in accordance with its leading idea of ‘ something added to the object’ (Donalds. Gr. § 455; comp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 263), taking the place of the less appro- priate case. Inferences drawn from these words as to the nature of the consecrated elements are obviously precarious. Unworthy participation, whether of the bread or of the wine, is what is here specially under con- sideration. Such participation was plainly a misusing and dishonour- ing of the divinely-appointed media of the communion of the body and blood of the Lord (see ch. x. 16), and so, in any case, involved the IIPOS KOPINGIOY> NPOTH. , , 7 c 4 aN A ? Soxipalérw dé avOpwros EavTov, Kal OVTWS guilt here specified: see Hofmann im loc. 28. Soxtpalérwo Sé «.7.A.] ‘ But let a man prove himself ;’ anti- thetically appended exhortation, suggested by the tenor of the fore- going clause; ‘But, to avoid the grievous guilt just specified, let a man &¢c.’ In this case, as indeed constantly, what is appended is con- nected by the antithetical 5¢, ‘qua non simpliciter nova enuntiatio priori opponeretur, sed interna sen- tentiarum conjunctio designaretur apertius,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 362; comp. notes on ch. 20. The collective oiv (see notes on ch. vil. 26) might have been here used in- stead of 5¢, but it would have given a greater prominence to the exhorta- tion than would be consistent with the context, which deals almost ex- clusively with the abuses that had taken place and their consequences. On the meaning of Soximd ew (‘ pro- bare,’ Vulg., égerd¢ew tiv oikelay didvo.ay, Theod.-Mops.), see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 4, and Trench, Synon. § 74, and on the use of &vépwmos as a ‘gravior dicendi formula’ (it is more than a mere ‘unusquisque,’ Theod.-Mops., Est., al.), compare notes on ch. iy. I. Kal ottws] ‘and so,’—after he has thus proved himself, and afrived at a true knowledge of his spiritual state; ‘sic demum,’ Beng. In what follows, the use of the pre- position with éc@iew and mivew seems intended just to mark the more formal and reverential partaking (‘ prepositio exprimit circumspectum animum,’ Beng.) of the one bread and the one cup; comp. ch. x. 17. For a practical sermon on this text XI. 28, 29, 30. 221 5 na *¥ > , \ > “ , 4 © €k Tov aptov eo OeTw kal ek TOV ToTNpiov TWEeTwW* 6 29 yap éobiov Kai tiver kpipa éavtd éeoOier Kai river py Siaxpivev 7 copa. \ lal > er. ‘ dua ToUTO ev uly odo 30 29. mlvwv) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderant authority: ver. 27. see Farindon, Serm. xxx. Vol. 1. p. 113 sqq. (Lond. 1840), and on the duty of ‘ self-proving,’ Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 872, Vol. mr. p. 465 sq. (ed. 2). 29. dyap éoOlwv «.7.A.] ‘ For he that eateth and drinketh;’ the words being repeated with solemnity from ver. 28, to the general tenor of which this present verse forms a confirmatory sequel: ‘such a proving of himself is indeed needful in the ease of each one who approaches the Lord’s table, for he that eats and drinks thereat, &c.’ The écOle kal mive: continue the iteration with deepening solemnity. Kp(wa éaut@ «.7.A.] ‘eateth and drinketh judgment to himself ;’ xpiua here re- taining its simple and proper mean- ing,—not ‘condemnationem,’ Syr., al., but ‘ judicium,’ ‘ staua,’ Goth.,— zand leaving the context to indicate -—S the character of the judgment, whether favourable or otherwise; see notes on Gal. v.10. From the present context it is clear that a condemnatory judgment is implied, but it does not follow that it is ‘pena mortis eterne,’ Estius, as the two verses that follow point rather to temporal judgments. The verse, however, loses but little of the gravity that has always rightly been associated with it, and the solemn truth remains, that he who approaches the Lord’s table, and in eating and drinking thereof, does not discern and solemnly regard Rec. adds avat/ws; repeated probably from c@ua} So all the above-mentioned edd. on similarly prepon- derant authority: Rec. adds rod Kuplov, the sacramental body to be ‘ meat indeed’ (John vi. 55), does verily eat and drink to himself the judg- ment of Almighty God. What the nature of that judgment will be will depend upon the nature of that which calls it forth. This xpiua, as Chrys. rightly observes, is od mwapd Thy abtis [the holy tpdre(a] picw, GAAG Tapa Thy TOD mpoclovros mpoalp- eoiv; comp. Theoph., Gicum. p77) Staxplvev Td cpa] ‘not dis- cerning (or, to preserve the con- nexion with ver. 31, and the con- sequent paronomasia,—rightly judg- ing) the body, scil. if he do not discern (or rightly judge) the body,’ the participle being here used with a hypothetical or conditional re- ference; see Kiihner, Gr. § 486. 3, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 207. 5. The Greek expositors adopt the causal reference (5:4 ri, Chrys.), but they adopt the reading dvatiws, with which this latter interpretation more naturally coalesces. What is here dwelt upon is the case and circum- stances under which he that eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment to himself, and this case is when- soever the ca@uais not regarded in its holy and saving nature by him who presumes to receive it. The verb may have here two meanings, either (a) discriminating, viz. be- tween the Lord’s body and earthly and common food (Est., Hofm., and appy- Syr.; comp. Acts xi. 12, xv. 5); or (6) discerning, forming a 222 IPOS KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH. al a PI. \ 31 aobevels Kal appworot, Kal KoiuovTa ikavol. el dé 31. el 8€] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., ei ydp. judgment on, ‘dijudicans,’ Vulg., ‘discernens,’ Clarom., ‘ ddmjands,’ Goth.; comp. ch. xiv. 29, Matth. xvi. 3. Of these the latter is to be preferred as in itself yielding a pertinent sense and in full harmony with the con- text, and esp. as suggested by ver. 31,—it being improbable that in two sentences bearing on the same sub- ject, and close to each other, the meaning of the word would not be the same: so Chrys. (uy eget a (wv, wh evvoay, &S xph, To weye0os TAy mpoKeEt- “évwv), Theoph., Gicum., and the ma- jority of modern interpreters. In regard of the serious doctrinal ques- tion which this verse raises, viz. what it is that the wicked receive, the answer, in accordance with the whole tenor of the verse (comp. Hofm.), and indeed of the passage, can only be that of our Church (Art. xxtx.): what they outwardly take is the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood, i.e. that which to the faithful is verily and indeed the spiritual food of the body and blood of the Lord, but to them (the wicked) is merely the ‘tant rei sacramen- tum seu symbolum,’ the ‘ sacramen- tum,’ as Augustine (in Joann. Tract. xxv. 11) says, being one thing, the ‘virtus sacramenti’ another. Thus undiscerningly eating and drinking the ‘ sacrament of so great a thing,’ thus manifesting what Martensen (Dogm. § 267) terms ‘the unhallowed sense ’ which fails to discern between the holy and the profane, they fall under the heavy judgment of ver. 27. Itis not, however, that the Lord’s body and blood becomes to them a ‘ vene- num ’ (Grot.), or even, strictly speak- ing, ‘ the instrument of their punish- ment’ (Wordsw.; compare Chrys., épddia KoAdoews), They are punished for profanation, and because, to use the words of Augustine (Joc. cit.), ‘bonum male mali accipiunt:’ comp. Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 145. 3, Vol. 1v. p. 229 sq. 30. 81a tTotTro év bpiv xk.7.A.] ‘ For this cause many among you are weak and enfeebled;’ illustrative proof (Tatra ws yevernuéva TéOeiker, Theod.) from the Corinthians them- selves (the év tut is slightly em- phatic, as its position suggests) of the kpiua éavT@ éobier xa river, and of the serious connexion between physical disease and profanation of the Lord’s Supper. It is not easy to draw any very clear distinction between do@eveis and &ppworo (‘ in- firmi et imbecilles,’ Vulg., ‘infirmi et morbo languidi,’ Valck.), except perhaps this, that the less frequently used term &ppworo: (Matth. xiv. 14, Mark vi. 5, 13, xvi. 18) seems to point to diseases predominantly marked by loss of bodily power (‘diuturno languore teneri,’ Calv.), while the more common dc@eveis is simply used to denote sickness gener- ally. The reference of these words to moral diseases (Valck. in loc.) is out of harmony with the context, and not even alluded to by any of the earlier expositors. What took place was of a nature that admitted no doubt: épya Selxvuct, kad udprupas avrovs Kade7, Chrys. KOLLOVTaL txavot] ‘not a few are sleeping ;’ the ixavol (thus felicitously rendered by Rey.) being perhaps intended here to mark something less than Ras? O34 42. 223 Eavtovs Suexpivopev, ovk Gv expwopeOa* Kpudpevor 32 the woddol, though still sufficiently numerous to arouse serious atten- tion. The verb comao@a, in accord- ance with its usage in 1 Thess. iv. 13 (see notes in loc.) is not here ‘obdormire’ (Beng.; comp. Winer Gr. § 40. 2.c), but simply ‘ dormire,’ Vulg.,—to be sleeping (the sleep of death), ‘in morte quiescere,’ Est. It is, however, very probable that the term was chosen as not implying any ‘mortem diram’ (comp. Beng.), such as in Acts y. 5, 10, but the final issue of ao@évera: and appworlat that came as warnings, but which came so in vain. In regard of such manifestations of God’s judgments, it may be remarked first, that the profanation of the Lord’s Supper may have been, as the ds 5€ pedver (ver. 21) seems to imply, of a very grievous nature; and secondly, that temporal punishments like other miraculous manifestations, in ac- cordance with the eternal wisdom of God, formed a part of the disciplinary development of the early life of the Christian Church. 31. el S% Eaqurots x.7.A.] ‘ But if (on the contrary) we rightly judged ourselves we should not be judged ;’ not ‘if we had judged our- selves, we should have, &c.,’ Alf. (which would imply an aorist in each member), but, with the proper force of the tense (comp. Gal. i. 10), ‘if we were in the habit of rightly judging, &c.:’ contrasted statement (5) to the facts mentioned in the foregoing verse, and expressed in the plurale communicativum (Winer, Gr. § 58. 4. rem. 2), so as to gener- alize the statement and divest it of any apparent severity of tone; Tabra Be A€yei, duod piv mapapyvOod- Mevos Tovs appdarous, duod Se Tobs tAdAous omovdaorépovs mow, Chrys. in loc. It seems difficult to deny (Hofm.) that the word d:axpivew here was chosen with some reference to its use in ver. 29. The subject- matter on which the judgment is formed is, it is true, different, but the same idea of ‘ dijudicatio,’ ‘forming a right estimate of’ (kara- “yweoxwy &s Sei, Chrysost.; comp. Soxiualéerw éavtdy, ver. 28) is clearly to be traced in each passage. On the meaning of the verb, see above, notes on ver. 29. 32. Kptvopmevor Sé@ x.7.A.] § But when we are (thus) judged, we are being chastened by the Lord ;’ con- tinuation of the former statement by the addition of a further com- ment (5€: ‘novum quid accedit,’ Herm. Vig.) on the true aspect of the kplyecda, The tod Kuplov, though, from the tenor of passages such as Heb. xii. 6, al., plausibly referred to God (Chrys., Theoph., Calv., al.), is more probably to be referred to our Lord (Est.; comp. Syr. and Theod.), in accordance with the general context, and, it may be added, with the general usage in St Paul’s Epistles; see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 12, On the meaning of ma:deveuv, ‘ per molestias erudire (vov@eclas yap marAdv eorw }} karablens 7d ywduevoy, Chrys.), see Trench, Synon. § 32, and notes on Eph. vi. 4; and on the general use of this word as implying that the one so dealt with is still within the sphere of ‘ the fellowship of God’ (pungshment. being without), see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin;1, 2. 2, Vol.1. 224 IIPOS KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH. de SA lal , 5 , 0 7 - * ~ € ur0 Tov Kupiov madevducba, wa pn ov TO 33 Koopm Kataxpdpev. ware, ade\pot pov, our- 34 Epxdpevor eis TO ayety addydovs exddyerOe. «i 32. tov Kuplov] So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating authority: Lachm., Rev., Rec. omit Tod. 34. fis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority : Rec. inserts 5 between the two words. p. 264 (Transl.). tva py civ TO Kéop@ Kataxkp.] ‘ that we should not be condemned together with the world,’ scil. at the last great day; merciful purpose of the madseve; God willeth the salvation of all (1 Tim. ii. 4, iv. 10), and chastens in order that His gracious 6éAnua should not be hindered by the sinfulness of man. The oiy 7G kécum is added to mark still more clearly the particular katdkpiois to which -the Apostle is referring: ‘mundo certa est condemnatio,’ Beng.; comp. Caly. in loc. On the meanings of kécpuos (here, the evil world,—but not necessarily [Est.] ‘propter immensam eorum [infide- lium et peccatorum] multitudinem),’ see Cremer, Worterb. p. 367, and notes on Gal. iv. 4. 33. Gore, GSeApol pov, «.7T.A.] ‘So then, or Consequently, my breth- ren, when ye come together to eat,’ scil. the common meal that termin- ated with the Lord’s Supper: con- cluding exhortation based upon the foregoing statements; the éore, with the imperative, introducing, with some slight degree of rhetorical force, the inferential direction which the Apostle here gives to his con- verts; see notes on ch. x. 12, and on Phil. ii. 12. The eis 7d with the infinitive represents, with studied distinctness, the purpose of the ovvepxeo0ar; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, Buttm. Gr. N. T. p. 227 sq. GAA Aovs ExSexec8e] ‘wait for one another ;’ ‘invicem expectate,’ - Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Copt., Arm. ; ‘expectate socios vestros,’ Ath. The verb exdéxeo8a has two meanings ; (a) excipere,—the more common meaning in classical Greek, and indeed in the LXX and Apocrypha (Is. lvii. 1, Ecclus. xviii. 14, al.) ; (b) expectare,—the meaning regu- larly found in the N. T. (ch. xvi. 11, Acts xvil. 16, Heb. x.<13, 2.10, James y. 17), and occasionally in classical writers (Soph. Phil. 123, Kurip. Tro. 244, al.). This latter meaning is here rightly maintained by most of the recent expositors, the direction of the Apostle being that it was the duty of all avayevew Thy kowhy suvédcvow, Theoph. Hof- mann maintains (a), on the ground that merely waiting for one another would not really remedy the true evil, viz. of making the Lord’s Sup- per an idiwrixdy Sezrvoyv (Phot.), but that the receival of each person, and of what he brought, would do this. The argument is plausible, but it involves a greater extension of meaning than the aAAnaAous éx- déxeo08e would bear, and an isolated departure from the meaning of the verb in the N. T. If they waited for one another there could not be any mpéAns of what was brought, and no excuse left for making the it. CMa aa, Ld. 'T- 22 Cr : a ¥ > , 7 a , Tis Tewa, ev oikw eoOreTw, va py) Els KPa our- épynobe. Ta S€ houTa ws av EhOw, SiaraFopar. The true criterion of spiritual gifts is con- fession of the Lord Jesus. Tlept Sé supper idiwrixdy in the case of any one: ‘quo simplicius, eo melius,’ Beng. 34. el tig twetva «.7.A.] ‘Tf any man hungers, let him eat at home ;’ if the excuse of hunger is made for the irregularities, the answer and remedy is easy. The omission of any connecting particle gives the sentence a greater sharpness and emphasis: e&dyav abrods aad rijs éxxAnolas eis thy oiklay mapaméuret, Theoph. The words that follow mark the purpose: it was no mere manifestation of apostolical au- thority, but was designed to save them from serious consequences : see Chrysost. i loc. Teh 8% Nowa x.7.A.] ‘ But the rest will I set in order whensoever I may come (lit. shall have come) ;’ state- ment, in the form of a slightly antithetical sentence (sub-adversa- tive 5€; comp. notes on Gal. ii. 20), of the manner in which the remain- ing matters connected with the ir- regularities in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper would be dealt with: Ta Aoiwa TH wapovola rerhpyKer, Theod. The Aoma obviously refer to the matters connected with the subject of the present paragraph, not to other matters therewith (Chrys.), and, as the verb suggests (comp. ch. xvi. 1, Acts vii. 44), to questions of ceremonial rather than of doctrine ; ‘ que pertinent ad exter- nam evratiav,’ Vorst. In the con- cluding words the addition of &v to the temporal particle implies the uncertainty when the event specified _by the verb subjunct. will take place ; see notes on Phil. ii. 23, and Tov mvevpaticoav, a- XII. comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 566. 1. and § 567.2. The remarks of Chryso- stom (comp. Theoph.) seem rather to imply that he did not feel this shade of uncertainty as to the Apostle’s coming ; at any rate it can- not safely be inferred from these words (Wordsw.) that the Apostle was at this time meditating a visit: he was considering it perhaps likely that he should come, but when that would be was certainly regarded by him as uncertain; comp. Herm. Partic. tv, p. 77, Winer, Gr. § 42. 3. 0. VI. SPIRITUAL GIFTS, AND MORE PAR- TICULARLY PROPHESYING AND SPEAK- ING WITH TONGUES (ch. xii.--xiv.). XII. 1-3. Spiritual gifts, their true and essential character. I. Mept S€ Tv tvevpatikdv] ‘ Now concerning spiritual gifts :’ transi- tion, by means of the 8 setraBati- xéy (see notes on Gal.i. 11, iii. 8), to another set of circumstances in which disorders and irregularities had shown themselves in the Corin- thian Church.” Whether what is here stated is in answer to enquiries (ch. vii. 1), or in consequence of in- formation received (ch. xi. 18), can- — not positively be determined: the _form—of words epi be K.7.A. seems rather to imply the former. Whether _Tewarixay is here neuter (ch. xiv. 1) or masculine (ch. xiv. 37) is also rather doubtful. The Versions leave it uncertain; so also Theodoret: Chrysost., Theodorus, and Theoph. distinctly adopt the former, while Origen (Cramer, Caten.) apparently inclines to the latter view. In Q 226 IIPOS KOPINOIOY> ITPOTH. 2 Seddol, od Oédw twas ayvoew. Oidate dri ore EOvH Te mpds TA Eldwla Ta ahwva ws av nyeobe 2. btt Bre} So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on greatly prepon- derating authority: Lachm. encloses the ére in brackets; Rec. omits. this uncertainty, which is equally apparent in later expositors, it is not easy to speak with confidence ; still this may be urged, (1) that, in what follows, the peculiar gifts,~ rather than the persons who are endowed .with.the gifts, appear to occupy._the prominent place in the Apostle’s thoughts; (2) that in the partially antithetical clause (ver. 4) with which the elucidation of the broad principle laid down in ver. 3 is introduced, the use of the term. xaplcuara does seem to imply that it refers back to, and is practically synonymous with, the term used in verse I.. We decide therefore_in favour of the neuter rendering : ‘vocat ea spiritualia ab auctore Spiritu Sancto,’ Est. 2 loc. od 0édo «.T.A.] ‘ I would not have you ignorant:’ studiedly formal introduction of an important sub- ject: see notes on ch. Fs \ 2) 7 2. OtSarTe : nr] ave know that, when ye were Gentiles, ye were led away, &c. :’ introduction of the subject by a reference to the state in which they were before their— conversion (comp. Eph. ii. rt), and so to the need of being instructed in a subject of which they could before have had no experience. The con- struction of the words is somewhat difficult, and was so regarded by Theodoret and Chrysostom, who see in the passage a kind of hurried brevity. In the grammatical ana- lysis of the sentence, however, this would seem clear, that, in soshort a sentence, we cannot admit (a) any explanation that would treat it as an Stu. Ste anacoluthon, and regard the ér: as practically otiose; nor (b) any re- sumption of the év: in the form of the @s that follows (see Kiihner, Gr. § 551. 6),—‘t how that, when ye were Gentiles, how (I say) ye were led to dumb idols,’—as the parti- cipial clause is thus without any real force, structurally awkward, and contextually almost superfluous. We are thus left with the only other possible mode of interpreting the words, viz. (c) the intercalation of a second jre after the participle. - According to this view, the 8re vq re and the as ty jyecbe are sub- ordinate clauses, the one with a temporal, the other with a sort of modal reference, and we are left only, as regards structure, with the ~ words ofare Sti mpds a eldwdra Th &pwva amayduevor, in the “case of which either we may assume an ellipse of the auxiliary verb (Kiihner, Gr. § 354. b, obs. 1, 2), or that sort of association of the participle with the finite verb which is practically equivalent to it: compare exx. in Kiihner, Gr. 551. 4, and compare Stallbaum on Plato, Apol. p. 37 8B. This last-mentioned interpretation is, on the whole, to be preferred : so Meyer, Evans, and, appy., also Heinrici, in his recent edition (ed. 6) of Meyer’s Commentary on this Epistle. ampds Ta ciSorAa 7a &hova) ‘unto the dumb idols’ that ye formerly worshipped ; the preposition marking with its usual and primary meaning (‘motion to- | ward,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 169) the direction of the amdyeo@a: it was SE aa >. 01 Ee ae § &mraydpevor. toward these mere dumb ‘simula- era,’ to pay honour and worship to em were Carried away, ‘instar pecudis,’ Calv.; the drayd- evar pointing, not so much to the ‘recta via’ (Grimm) from which they were drawn, as to the forcible and hostile character of the action (rd EXkeeWa, Chrysost.), while the in others. Thus each word has its appropriate and suggestive signifi- cance. &v Hyeobe] ‘as (from time to time) ye might be led>’ ‘ prout ducebamini,’ Vulg., scil.* pro nutu ducentium,’ Est.; the > imper- _fect_with &v marking the indefinite recurrence of the act; see Kihner, Gr. § 392%. 5, Winer, Gr. § 42. 3. In passages of this nature (comp. Mark vi. 56, Acts ii. 45, iv. 35) the act itself, as specified by the verb, is not regarded as contingent as to occurrence, but as modified only in regard of the time, manner, or cir- cumstances of taking place, accord- ing to the particle with which the éyv is associated: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p. 145, and comp. Herm. Viger, No. 285. In both &yeo@a and ardyec6a: there is a plain refer= ence to the agency of the devil, whether directly, or as manifested in the odpt (Gal. v.17): the sons of God, on the contrary, are drawn by e blessed and opposing Power; omp. Rom. viii. 14, Gal. v.18. It has been suggested by Fritzsche and others that & is not an inde- pendent particle, but is a part of the compound avfyeo0e. Thisis possible, “but not- probable, as there would be no real contextual significance 227 Sud yropila tyiv ote ovdels ev Ived- 3 in the compound, and the ‘ happen to be’ (not without its force) of the &yer0a necessarily obliterated. 16] ‘ On which account, Where- fore ;’ scil. in Cofisequence of your haying been, previously to your con- _version, thus led away to dumb idols, and so, by the very nature the case, ignorant of spiritual ae and manifestations ; the 5: (‘ propter quod,’ Clarom.) introducing; with a somewhat close connexion (‘ aptius duas res conjnaty ts, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 173), the solemn disclosure that follows, as rendered absolutely necessary from their, so to say, con- genital ignorance of Ta mvevuatind. On the use of 5) in St Paul’s Epp., see notes on Gal. iv. 31. The con- nexion between this verse and the preceding has been very variously stated by different expositors, but too often under the influence of some special interpretation of the Tav mveynatikav of ver. I. To dis- cuss them is profitless. Itit_be Cl that Tay xvevuarinay is neuter, and that, with the inclusive nature of the neut. plural with the article (‘res spirituales;’ see Kiihner, Gr. § 403, rem. 2), it-refers, not merely to speaking with tongues but to the various spiritual gifts~specified in this, and the two following chapters, then the general connexion cannot correctly be made to involve more than has been stated. Theodorus (Mops.) has nearly stated the whole matter when he thus simply para- phrases; @€Aw suas kal rov mvevua- TiKOY xapiondrwy eidévat Thy Tdakw Gore BotrAoual rit Kal rept tottwy If he had added tpiv, d-e poe: ayvovcw, he would have covered the whole ground. For a brief statement of the various views of Q2 elmeiy, 228 pate Ocov Nadav héyeu TIPOS KOPINOIOY2 IPOTH. "Avdbena “Incovs, kal ovd- els Svvatau eirety Kvpios ‘Ingots, et pn év Ivev- c ’ Pate aylo. / \ 4, > C Th 4 Avaipéoers S€ xapiopatov Elo, Tre en — —__ is diversity in s, but unity in their source and their purpose. A 3. “Avdbeua "Incots ... Kupios "Incois] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, in each case on nearly the same, and that very clearly preponderating, authority: Rec., ’Avdeua "Inoodv . , . Kipiov "Incoby. the connexions that have been ad- vanced, see De Wette and Meyer in loc. év Mvetparte Ocod Aaddv] ‘speaking in the Spirit of God,’ i.e. in the sphere and element, as it were, of the eternal Spirit, and as generally under His influence ; comp. Matth. xxii. 43, Rom. viii. 9, 15, Eph. vi. 18, al. On this familiar use of the preposition in the N. T., especially as seen in the forms évKup'@ or év Xpiorg, comp. notes on Eph. iy.1. We may apparently rightly distinguish between passages like the present, where the idea of the surrounding and pervading element is the primary thought, and those in which instrumentality (Rom. viii. 13), or mediating influence (Acts xxi. 4), or direct agency (Luke ii. 26) is intended to be more particu- larly brought into prominence. In the two latter cases, as we might expect, the def. article (of which in passages referring to the blessed Spirit due note must be taken) is commonly inserted. On the distinction between AaAeiy (‘ vocem ore mittere’) and Aéyew (‘ dicere,’— with reference to the subject-matter), here in juxtaposition (comp. Rom. ili. 19), see notes on Tit. ii. I. A€yer "Avadbewa *Inaots] ‘ Jesus is anathema ;’ the blessed person bear- ing the adorable name of Jesus (Matth. i. 21)—the personal name which the hapless blasphemer would naturally utter—is anathema, 2. e. accursed; see notes on Gal. i. 8. This blasphemous utterance would mainly.be.that of the Jews {teomp. Acts. xiii..45,Xvill. 6); ‘ faciebant gentes, sed magis Jud#i,’ Beng. This is the criterion on the one side, —whosoever so speaks, speaks not in the Spirit of God. In the clause that follows, which is a little dif- ferently worded, viz. ‘No man is able (of himself; it was the voice of faith) to say Jesus is Lord,’ the criterion on the other side is given; ‘whosoever so speaks, can only so speak in the Holy Spirit.’ Hofmann in effect inverts the first clause, re- garding the words rather as supply- ing a reassurance than merely a criterion,—‘ do not be disquieted about these utterances; whosoever speaks in the Spirit never utters the first words, and whosoever utters the second can only do so in the Spirit.’ The above explanation, how- ever,—that a criterion is given, first on the negative, and then on the positive, side, is simpler and more natural : compare the similar, but more precisely stated criteria in 1 John iv. 2, and the comments of Origen (Cram. Cat.) on this place. On the teaching of the Spirit of God, see two good sermons by Farindon, Serm. t., u1., Vol. m. p. 525 sqq. (Lond. 1849). The variety but real | 4—II. unity of the spiritual gifts, and thew true purpose. 4. Avatpécers St xaptopdrov] ‘ There are, how- Nisa XII. as 5: 229 rd Sé adrd Tvetpa: Kat Siaipérers Siaxovidr eiciv, 5 , divisions of gifts ;’ the 8% not being transitional, as in ver. I, but slightly snithetioal and correstive~ ai- AT)” : (‘ vero,’ Vulg.), contrasting the 6 péoeis K.T.A. with the broad general characteristics above specified, The \ alpects (a dmat Aeysuevoy in the N. T.) may mean either (a) di- 9 / visions, _distributions, * divisiones,’ Vulg., Syr. (comp. Copt.), with re- ference to the fact of one gift being given to one, and one to another paraphrases), or, more derivatively, (0) differences, ‘ distinctiones,’ Beza, with Teference to the quantitative (Chrys., Theoph.) or qualitative dis- the former, however, is distinctly to e preferred on account of the use of the verb diaipey in ver. It: comp. eb. ii. 4, Tvedparos aylov ‘Mepio pois, e Apostle is not dwelling on the ifferences of the gifts, but on the aried way in which the Spirit had /Wouchsafed to distribute them to ‘individuals; ‘ summa huc redit, non ita varie divisas esse fidelibus gratias, ut sint distracte,’ Calv. The xapicnara; thus distributed, are the gifts emanating from the Holy Spirit (ver. 11), youchsafed to individuals for the furtherance of the well-being of the Church, and the development of the spirittial life: see Rom. xii. 6, where the Apostle specifies four of these gifts of grace. In the early Church, as this and the following chapters very clearly indicate, these blessed gifts appear to have had more of an immediate nature and character; in the succeeding ages, including our own, they have as- sumed more of a mediate nature, and, though not one whit less real, silently disclose themselves in the varied evolutions of the spiritual life; see Schmid, Bibl. Theol. § 47, p. 287 sq. (Transl.), and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 92. b, Vol. m. p. 33 (Transl.). On the use of the word in the N. T., see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 581, and comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 14. Td St abta —Avcipa) ‘but the same Spirit ;?~ ‘unus Spiritus fons omnium dono-= rum,’ Caly. That the reference is here to the blessed Person of the Holy Ghost, and, in the verses fol- lowing, to the Son and to the Father, cannot possibly be denied by any consistent interpreter: see the lucid comments of Photius in Cramer, Cat. (in loc.), p. 229, and compare Cyril (Hieros.), Catech. xvi. p. 203 sqq. In this verse it may be ob- -served that we have the antithetical _ .B&in the second member of the verse _ rather than the cat of the following ~ verse, the object of the inspired writer - being here, where the tenor_of the words seems more particularly to re- quire it, to mark the’ ‘ antitheton inte¥ unum fontem et flumina multa,’ Beng.: comp. ver. 7. On this and the following verses, see Bp An- drewes, Serm. xv. Vol. mt. p. 377 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.), the Convocation- Sermon of Bp Hall, Works, Vol. x1. p- 7 sqq., South, Serm. m1. p. 30 sqq. (Lond. 1843), and on the great dog- matical importance of this and the following verses, Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 28. 2, Vol. 1. p. 354 (Transl.). 5. Srarcpécers Staxovidy) ‘ divi- sions of ministrations;’ the—term Siaxovla not being here limited to _ the Aecroupyla of men specially or- 230 IIPO2 KOPINOIOYS IIPOTH. 6 Kat 6 avros Kipios’ Kai draipéoes evepynuarov > “4 ec ‘ oa % ‘\ e > “ ‘ , > claiv, 6 S€ avtos Ocds 6 Eepyov Ta TavTA & 6. 6 5€ airbs @cds] The reading is here not perfectly clear. As regards the insertion of éor: (Rec. only; but with B) between airds and @cds, there does not seem to be any reasonable doubt, the omission resting on very greatly preponderating authority. There is, however, some doubt as be- tween the text and the reading of Westcott and Hort (with margin), viz. cal 6 avtbs Oeds, with BC; 37; Orig. On the whole, as 5€ seems to rest on clearly preponderating, though (as to order) divided authority, and as the «al may be due to an assimilation to the corresponding clause in ver. 5, we adopt the reading of the text with Lachm., Tisch., Treg. (with marg.), and Rev. dained to it (Theod.; comp. Estius in loc., who also includes that of women, such as Phebe, Rom. xyi. 1), but, as the broad and general nature of the context seems to suggest, including all forms of ministration, of whatever character, that tended to the good of the Christian body, whether regarded individually or collectively. that diaxovia generally refers in the N. T. to ‘spiritual service of an offi- cial nature’ (see notes on Eph. iy. 13), but this would seem to be due more to the context than to the word taken by itself. On the use of the word in the N. T. see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 179 sq. Kal dé attds Kuptos] ‘and the same Lord:’ ‘a quo, ut Deo, et per quem, ut hominem, illa omnia conferun- tur,’ Estius. In this verse the second member does not stand, as in ver. 5 and 7, in any antithetical relation to the first member, but states a broad spiritual truth, as it were side by side with that enun- ciated in the first member ; ‘there is a variety of ministrations, and (as a further and appended truth) He towards whom all these adminis- trations ultimately point, and whom they are all intended to glorify, is It may be admitted ~ truly one and the same Lord:’ see Hofmann i7 loc. — aA ™ 6. 8ratpécerg evepynudtoy] ‘di- visions of workings,’ ‘ divisiones operationum,’ Vulg.; the évepyjuara being here the effects (* effectus;— Grimm), results, and outward mani- " festations of the inworking power,— not simply synonymous with the xepiouara (Theod., comp. Chrys.), but the practical exhibitions of that same divine evépyem from which xopiopara, Siakovia:, and evepyipara all alike emanated ; comp. ver. II. The nature of the évepyjyara has been variously specified by exposi- tors (wonder-workings, miraculous healings, &c.), but, as in the case of Biakovia, is obviously general and «inclusive. In regard of the lexical use of the word, Cremer pertinently cites Diod. Hist. rv. 51, rev 5¢ evepy- neatev twrep thy avOpwylvny picw pavevTwv. 6 8 abtis Ocds x.7.A.] ‘but the same God who works all these (workings) in all;’ state- ment in an antithetical form, as in ver. 5, of the oneness of the blessed nworker as contrasted with the , Variety of the operations; the re- apse into the antithetical form har- in which éevepyjpara and 6 évepyav Kin wick with the tenor of the verse | | a RG, 9, 8. 231 wacw. éxdotw Sé didota » pavépwors Tov Ivev- 7 patos Tpos TO Gupdépov. @ pév yap Sia Tov IIvev- 8 form a kind of natural contrast. The r@ wdyra referto the various forms of manifestation, and the “waow to those in whom they are displayed. On the instructive as- pects of the Trinitarian doctrine which these verses disclose, see Chrysostom in loc., and Cyril on ver. 7 (Cramer, Cat.). 7. éxkdore S% SiSorat x.7.A.] ‘ But _to each one is given the mani- festation of the Spirit with a_siew to brains 3% Yy ap- pended stat ement of thé ultimate purpose of the distribution; the e (contrast ch. ii. 4), seems in favour of (b), the manifestation out- Se es within (pavépwow 5¢ Mvevmatos + onucia kadei, Chrys.) being here the prominent thought: consider also the d.de7a, which seems to favour the same view (comp. Theod.) - certainly obviates the objection that the human actor would thus have too much assigned to him. apds To GURbEepOV} "With a view to profiting,’ ‘ad utilitatem,’ Vulg.; the ition having here its gen- eral meaning (when used figura- primary emphasis~resting on the tively) of ‘ethical direction towards’ ™pos 7d gvupepoy, and the secondary — emphasis on the éxdor@ (expanding ’ the waow of ver. 6) didora, as speci- fying the manner in which the pur- pose was worked out. This cvupepov was not merely in regard of the in- jee! (rd AvawreAoUy exdor@, heod.; compare Chrys., Theoph.), but of the community; see ch. xiv. 12, and the comments of Bp Sander- son, Serm. ut. (ad Clerum), p. 54 sq. (Lond. 1686) ; see also Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 43, p. 354 sq. (Transl.). that was given (the significance of this word must not be left unno- ticed; see Sanderson, J, c.) was 4 (Winer, Gr. § 49. h), and_marking the design and direction of the will of the actor: see ch. x. 11, 2 Cor, xi. 8, 1 Pet. iv. 12,and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 31, p. 265, Rost u. Palm, Pee Vols 2 VOL 16: Dp. DIST. 8. 6 wey yap «.7.A.) ‘ Hor ta one _is given through the Spirit:’ elucidatory statement of the éxdor@ 5& didora of the preceding verse, the yap here having more of its explanatory than its purely argu- _mentatiye force, and_serving to introduce the expansion into details which follows, On the pure explan- atory use of ydp, see notes on Gal. avé Tov Mvevparos, which”) ii. 6, and on this more mixed use, may mean either (a) the manifestat ’ notes on 1 Thess. ii, 1, and on Gal. iv. diomof whigh, the Auidiwas thesoz:, agent (gen. subjecti); see ch. ii, 4, and notes in loc.; or (b) the mani- = (in outward act) of the working Spirit, tov Mveduaros being the gen, objecti ; see 2 Cor. iy. 2,77 pavepéoe: THs GAnOelas, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. a, Kiihner, Gr, § 414. 1 sq. In_such cases of am- biguity—we-can-only_be-guided by the context; and this, in the present ~ ¥ In regard of the enumer- ation of the spiritual gifts in this and the two following verses, various — arrangements haye been proposed, the. most plausible, perhaps, of which is that of Meyer, al., accord- ing to which we should here have three classes marked off by the ér¢pp in ver. 9, and the érépw in ver.10, The intellectual gifts would thus form a first class ; gifts depend- a f f -—-+ | 232 — patos didotat dyos MPO KOPIN@EIOYS TIP Ure, goias, ahdw 6€ hdyos , ‘ ‘\ - A . fe , > Led 9 YVYeCEWS KATA TO AUTO ITvevpa, cTEP@ TLOTLS EV TH 9. érépw) So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponder- ing on faith and its manifestations, a_ secon nnected with tongues,.athird. It may be ou whether n really be relied on, and whether the on es really means more thar than athird,’ one-different (see notes 07 notes on Gal. i. er (Hofm.), and the second érépy, one different from each &AA@ of the four that had j preceded. If we_are.to_adopt any classification a at all, it must_be that which is on_ the very _surface,— according to which the three, Pp artly intellectual, partly spiritual, xapi- cuara are first mentioned, each h being defined by a reference to the eternal Spirit, and next(the &AA@_indicat- ing_a fresh start), in two pairs, the four principal (so to say) concrete manifestations of the one thus in- ‘working Spirit ; the gifts of tongues and their interpretation being sub- joined as a concluding, and some- what more novel form of manifesta- tion. We now proceed to the details. Adyos codtas] ‘the word of wisdom; ’ the gen. being the gen. of the (so to say) ethical content ; see 2 Cor. vi. 7, Eph. i. 13, 1 Thess. ii. 5, and comp. Scheuerlein, Syntax, 12. 1, Hartung, Casus, p. 21, Kihner, Gr.§ 402. c. On the close connexion between this gen. anc and the gen. of the quality, see notes on 2 Thess. ii. 7. Rumpel in his very interesting and instructive Casuslehre (p. 209 sq.) regards all these distinctions as untenable. That they may be to a certain extent artificial is not denied; but that they help to clearness and precision of thought is so certain that they are rightly maintained in all the best modern grammars. On_the distinction between copia (the more general) | and yvaois (the more restricted), see notes on Col. aueo, Adéyos yvéocws] the word of knowledge,’—the word f which the ethical content _is nowledge,’ i.e. that ‘faculty by hich the mind takes full and telligent cognisance > of the object resented to it: comp. Hofmann in~ loc. The distinctions between this and the preceding expression, drawn by expositors from Chrysostom down- wards,are..as..yaried as they are numerous (for a few of these see De Wette in loc.): this, however, is perhaps all that can be said, that _Adyos copias is the higher gift of the — two.(it was given through the blessed Spirit-as the medium), and as“such specified first in the enumeration : comp. Chrys., Theod., al., and the good note of Bengel in loc. kata Td adTd Nvebpa) ‘accordiny to the same Spirit,’ through “which the Ad-yos coplas was imparted : the preposition here marking, with its” usual and j proper force, the accord> ance with the disposing will of the blessed Spirit (Winer, Gr. $49.d. [a)), and presenting, as it were, another aspect-ofthe divine agency: comp. Rom. xv. 5, 2 Cor. xi. 17, and see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 239, 241. 9. étép@ mloris K.t.d.] ‘to another (a third; comp. notes on ver. 8) faith in_the same Spirit:’ not ‘ faith’ in its usual sense (‘ fides — salvifica ” ’), nor any intense form of | such “(comp. Meyer), but, as the Mine G, 10. 233 avTo IIvevpati, addo dé yapiopata iapatwr év TO . &vt TIvedipati, ad\\o dé evepyjpmara Suvdpewv, a\iw 10 be mpodyteia, ade Lakpioeis TVEULATwY, ETEPH EVN ating authority: Rec. adds 5¢é; Lachm. encloses in brackets. év Mveduart] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on good external authority, though small in amount, but on very clear internal considerations ; Rec., adrg@ Mrevmari. 10. Aw mpopytela, BAA Siaxpicers rv.] So Lachm., Treg., on what seems to be slightly preponderating authority: Rec., Tisch., Rev., add 5¢ after each &AAw; Westc. and Hort retain, but in brackets. érépy| So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on more clearly preponderat- ing authority: Rec., érépw 5é. whole context seems to suggest, a h. xvii. 20, xxi.21; see Theod., Chrys.), Staite to the will-power (Hofm.), in God’s merci- ful pleasure to bring about that to~ whic e movement of the will is, under His guidance, dit directed ; comp. Bengel in loc.,— who, however, seems reluctant to admit the partial dis- tinction in kind which the above interpretation appears to involye,— and Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 488. On the view thus taken of wforis in this passage, see Suicer, Thesaur. ols I. p. ali This faith is év +¢ t, in_the ‘sphere of, and with the help of, the Spirit ; see notes on ver. 3; and comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 6. dapdroy) ‘ gifts-ef—healings,’ scil. gifts by which healings are effected (rd Ccparetew macay vécov Kal macay padakiay, Theoph.),the gen. being a -kind_of genitive of the ‘principal constituent’ (Bernhardy, Syntax, mit po p- 161), and so of the resultant These effects might b be of a “more ieuetly miraculous (Acts “ie iv. 20, v. 16, comp. Mark xvi. 18), 0 of peeve Mire tog nature, 7. e. when natural means received a special and supernatural blessing ; comp. James vy. 14. The xapiopata plural marks the different_varieties of healings; one having the _power~) of healing one kind of disease, another of another kind. For exx. of this usé Of thé plural, see Kiihner, Gr. § 348. 3. c. All these gifts were in the sphere of, and by the working of, the one blessed Spirit who is the causal fountain of all. 10. évepyyjpata Suvdpewr] ‘work- ings s;’ inward workings - (ver..6) of which the outward mani- festations (comp. Mark vi. 14) are miracles, the gen. being similar to” ‘that-in-ver. 9, but_more —— under the general category o gen.objecti; comp. Winer, OF. 1. a. The miracles were not con- fined to healings, as in the” pre- ceding clause, but were of a more inclusive i nature; “whether disciplin- ary ary (Acts Vv. T 8qq., Vil. 24, xill. IT), or general (Acts v. 12, xxviii. 5), extending even to the raising of the dead (Acts ix. 40). ). The giving over to Satan’ (ch. vy. 5, 1 Tim. i. 20) in part belongs to these evepyfuara, its true meaning being not only ex- communication, but also the super- natural infliction of some bodily dis- ease; see notes on 1 Tim. l. c. apopntela ‘prophecy ;’ not merely in thes i TGV pmedAbvTov mpocayspevois (Theod.), but, as very Bid nf tet dc 3 eee “A 234 Il yWwooar, alto S€ épunveia yoooor’ clearly shown in ch. xiv. 3, 24, 25, 30, inspi ce, whether for _ ) e edification, consolation (ch. xiv. 3), conversion of the unbelieving (ch. xiv. 24), or the unsealing of all the secret fountains of the inner life (ch. xiv. 25): comp. notes on ch, xi. (PN acon 1 Thess. vy. 20, Eph. iv. 11, Cremer, Worterb. s. v. mpophrns, p. 572, and for an early illustration of the office and characteristics of the mpoparns, the newly discovered Teaching of the Apostles, ch. xi. sqq.; see also Thorndike, Religious Assemblies, ch. v. Vol. 1. p. 382 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.) Staxplcets mvevpatoyv |‘ discernings of spirits ;’ the_gift_of discerning in each case —_. -(hence--the-plural) the true source_ whence the spiritual manifestations, | as displayed in the foregoing mpoon- tela, really emanated. grace specially given by the Holy Spirit, which enabled him who had received it, at once to discern, not only tovs id Tod évaytiov mvedmaros -evepyouucvous. (Theodoret), but those who spoke from their own human’ tvevpara, dixa Tod Mvetuaros (Cyril) : comp. I Thess. v. 21, and notes in loc. This gift was not dependent on eS -reflexion, but showed itself in n intuitive and instinctive percep- see Hofmann im loc. yevn aecoty] ‘different kinds of ~ tongwes ;’ utterances, of various kinds | (Btapopal, Theoph.), whether in lan- ' guages not known to those who spoke in them (€ré€pats porous, Acts ii. 4; comp. 1..Cor. xiy. 21, age) or in ecstatic forms of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving (ch...xiv.14, 17), so uttered as to need an interpreter,— such interpreter being sometimes the speaker (ch. xiv. 5, 13), some- _times one specially endowed with tion: \ It_was a Aadjcovow Kawwais ; IIPO2 KOPINOIOYS TIPOTH. TavTa the gift of understanding the utter- that are almost exclusively ref referred to in this Epistle appear ‘to have been of the latter kind, viz. éither vocal sounds wholly unit ee to those who had not the gift f interpretation, or incoherent and un- connected _outpourings of the ordi- narily known language, which, owing to_the absence of the coordinating — vovs (ch. xiv. 14, 19), could not be + ances (ch, xiy, 27). The utterances é _understood. The tongue, moved by the Spirit, was that which, in such cases, alone was active; comp. Weiss, Bibl.-Theol. § 92, Vol. mu. p. 34 (Transl.). Of this latter kind we have also examples in the case of those in the house of Cornelius (Acts x. 46), and of the disciples in Ephesus (Acts xix. 6). We thus_may_clearly recognize in the N. T. two general forms of this mys- terious and divine gift,—(1) the lnigher, that of speaking in languages known to the hearers, but unknown 9 to the speakers, of which the only’ certainly recorded instance is Acts ii. 4 sqq.; compare, however, the promise in Mark xyi. 17, yAdooais (2) the lower and more common form, showing itself probably in many different kinds of manifestation, which is mentioned here and elsewhere in the N. T. To deny the reality of the higher form (Meyer) or to ex- plain it away (Cremer, Worterb. p. 163 sq.), because in this is Epistle the lower form is mainly ‘referred to, or, conversely, to maintain that what i is spoken of here is simply identical with the higher form (Chrys., Theod., Est., Wordsw., al.), is inconsistent with the plainly different tenor~of Acts ii. and 1 Cor. xiy. The ». G1 aS A 255 Sé radra evepyet 75 &v Kal Td adTd TIvedpa, Sia- povr idia Exdotw Kabas Bovderar. literature on the subject is very copious. It may be enough to name the special treatises of Engelmann (1848), Froschammer (1850), Ross- teucher (1850), and Maier (1855), and the numerous and sometimes valuable articles in the Studien wu. Kritiken for 1829, 1830 (Bleek), 1838 (Baur, Wieseler), 1839 (Osiander, Kling),1843,1844 (Olshausen, Bauer), 1849 (Reiche), 1860 (Wieseler). épunveta yAwoody) ‘ interpretation ues,’ *—the po power of conveying to others in intelligible language the meaning of the utterances. ~The translation of Vulg. ‘ interpretatio sermonum’ (Clarom., ‘linguarum ’) may have arisen from a desire to convey the idea that th the yAacou were forei reign languages : ee 28th. ‘ linguarum regionum.’ In some cases the gift was possessed by the one-who spoke with tongtes (ch. xiv. 5, 13), but, as it would seem, less _commonly. The patristic expositors, in accordance with their interpreta- tion of yAdoou above, regard the gift as that of interpreting to others words spoken in a foreign language with which neither interpreter (Calv.) nor those to whom he interpreted were acquainted : comp. Wordsworth “in loe. Il. mwdavtTa §S€ tTatta k.7T.A.] ‘ But all these .worketh the one and the same Spirit ; ’ antithetical trans- ition from the enumeration of the~ , varied gifts to the one blessed Giver, | the two expressions of verses 8, 9, being here put in one,—td Ev nal 7d avrd Mvedpa. The Spirit is not here to be regarded under the aspect of the Mvetya rod Tiod (Cyril), but, as in ver. 4, 7 sqq., the Holy Spirit, in the usual acceptation of the words, - the eternal Spirit as now fully nr agreement the Church and the individual: see Dorner, cir. § 129, Vol. rv. p- 160 (Clark). Siarpody Sia exdory] ‘dividing severally each man ;’ secondary.predica- tion (Donalds. Gr. § 441), by means of a participial clause;-in-which the manner of the 7d évepyeiv is defined and elucidated. The blessed Spirit not only works in the Church gener- ally, but in the individual(obs. idi¢ éxdoTw), and gives in each ease-the- xdpicua that He willeth to give,.and knoweth to be best: comp. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 269, p. 190 sq. (Transl.). The gift is youchsafed tig (‘ seorsim,’ Grimm : the Vy. with the exception of Goth. [‘ sundré ’] omit the word in_translation. The form idia (scil. 36) occurs frequently in classical Greek, but only here in the _N. T. (comp. 2 Mace. BévAerar]‘accordingas Hewilleth ;’ — With distinct personal reference ; evepyet, Samep kat 5 Marhp, Theoph. : comp. ver. 18. The will of the Holy Spirit Is that which determines the gift, but as that will is moved by infinite wisdom, the capacity of each one for the particular gift is, by the very nature of the case, involved in the 7) Siaipeiy: ‘ singulis dat singula, vel aliqua, variaé mensurf,’ Beng. There is, therefore, nothing in this verse inconsistent with the (nAoire 7a xaplopara Ta peiCova of ver. 31. _12-30. Illustration from the na- tural body of the spiritual truth | Tiiat though. the gifts nay be varied, | | rc iv. 34> —Th Joseph. Bell. tv. 4. 1), kar’idlay (se. 65dv, or x#pay) being the usual form of expression. Kabag VA Af / 236 1.2 IIPO2 KOPINGIOY2 Kabdrep yap To cOpa ev éorw Kal wédn Toa exer, TavTA SE TA EAH TOV GapaTos To\ka OTA &Y eoTW capa, ovTws Kal 6 Xpuiotos* TIPOTH. It is with these gifts as with the functions of the natural body. God has placed in His Church men va- riously endowed. ®, \ > £o% Kat y2p €vy EV 12. moAAa @xet] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, with very clearly preponderating authority: MRec., exe: moAdd. The words Tod évds are added by Rec. after céuaros but rejected in all the above- mentioned edd. on greatly preponderating authority. those endowed with them make up ——but one Spiritual whole. 2. Kabatep yap vet} Hor even 2, p. 485. ottas Kal 6 Xptorés] ‘so also is Christ,— whom all form one mystical Body Tear as the body is one;’ confirmatory comp. ver.27. The exact meaning illustration (imdderyua ets leroy Peper, —~of 6 Xpiords i is “not _ perfectly-eertain. Chrys.) of the preceding statement that all the many gifts are bestowed by one inworking Spirit,th kabd- _ arep “marking the thoroughly | appo- site nature of the comparison : comp. the clearly similar passage, Rom. xii. 4. On the use of this OLD ‘particle, See notes on 1 Thess. ii. 11, and on the meaning of the extensive ep (a shortened form of epi), the useful comments of Kuhner, Gr. § 510; comp. also Klotz, Devar. Vol. um. p. 722, and Donalds. Crat. § 178. awdavra Sé «.7.A.! ‘and_all the members of the body, though they be many, are one bodys” subjoined statement as to the méAn TOAAG regarded i in their totality, the d¢ adding, with a slight contrast and antithesis, the further fact that ‘though thus confessedly many “they coalesced in making together one body, The participial clause is perhaps slightly concessive (ei ral didopa Exouev wean, Theod.), rather than merely circwmstantial (‘ being “many y, as thus : serving better to “keep up the slight contrast between : the clauses: comp. 1 Thess. ii. 6, ~ and notes i loc., and on the varied uses in Greek of the participial member, Scheuerlein, Syntax, § 46. The early _expositors and most modern writers regard it as signify- a ing ‘the Christian Church’ (rdv Xpiotoy ayrl ris exkAnolas "Tr éBeuce, Chrys.), as being the body of which™ He is the unifying Head (Theod.) ; comp..Eph. iv. 16. ~» It would seem, however, in the present case and in the _passage_generally, that the idea of the head, as the unifying or r¢- not the prevailing thought, but. even the contrary (for, in the comparison that follows, the head is only re- garded as a part and a member; ver. 21), and that thus 6 Xpiords is” here probably used in its more mystical sense as He in whom all believers are united, —the unifying Rape personality ; compare Bishop Hall, } Christ Mystical, chap. 1. 2. The faithful are regarded as united with,~ and members of, Christ (ver. 27), and..as.forming. by that union on one | body, viz. His body, the e Church. What then is true of the body and its" members, is true of Christ and the members which make-up mystical Body: comp. Rom. xii. 4, Eph. vy. 29, and see Hofmann i Toc. 13. Kal yap x.7.A.] ‘for verily in one Spirit were we all baptized XII. , e A , > A “ > , TIvevpate pets mwavtes els ev coma €Bartiocbn- Ss\'E33- Id. 237 13 a ” »¥ A prev, elite “Iovdatou etre “EAnves, eite Sovdou Etre €evOepou, Kal mavres ev IIvevpa erotic One. Kai 14 13. kal wdvres &y Mvetua] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority : Rec. inserts eis after mdyres, conformably to the first clause. into one body :’ ation of the ne body, by t tfact 4, ~ehrys., Tl Theod. ; pn they had all been baptized into at they nad Bs ad cne body: «al having here its ascen- ae sive rather than“ it force, and throwing an 1 emphasis-on the ev vl Tivevuati; it was in one Spirit that they were baptized, and so incorporated in one body. On the two uses of al ydp, see notes on 2 Thess. iii, 10, and the good com- ments of Kiihner, Gr. § 544. 3. 2. It is almost self-evident that é tlc@muev is to be taken in its usual OEE tg eT ee ee Sees nd proper sense, and that the ev” ét" Tivetyars marks the holy an¢ vi Tivevyars marks the holy and blessed element, as it were, in which (not ‘by which,’ Auth.; comp. Theod.) utward baptism (comp. ey See ree place. Without pressing the words as here specifying dogmatically the ‘ materia ceelestis’ (comp. Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 140. 4. obs., Vol. rv. p. 293, Transl.), we_must not fail to recognize the intimate connexion of of the Holy Spirit with Christian baptism which “these words emphatically indicate, ~and the protest they involve against the modern tendency to merge the initial gift_in_ the supplemental. As Dorner truly says, "The gift of the Holy Ghost implanting a new life, t the germ or seed of a new man, is essential to Christian bap- tism,’ Chr. Doctr. § 138, Vol. rv. p. 278; comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 34, Vol. 1. p. 455 (Transl.), and Newman, Serm. Vol. m1. p. 298 sqq. er an its conjunctive | Onuev. We may observe, lastly, that eis may ‘ut simus unum corpus,’ Beng.), bu but it that _it_seems _ more consistent with the usage of. BarriCecba € e's to maintai in the simple _ and ordinary semi-local sense ; they _ were baptized into one body, and so, _by_the very nature of the case, became one body, by the blessed incorporation: comp. Hofmann in loc. etre *lovSaior x.7.A.] ‘whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free;’ the first and third efre marking the separation of the clauses, the second and fourth, of the_members of the clauses (comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 6), —both _ clauses being dependent on the xal ¢Bamtle- ‘The Apostle states the great and fundamental truth, specified also _ in Gal. ili. 28, and Rom, xii. 8, that all distinctions, whether of nations or conditions, are done away with in~ -this_being baptized ev &) Tveduarn; compare Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 92, Vol. m. p. 31 (Transl.). On the relation of the differences of vocation to this fundamental truth, see esp. Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 43, p. 356 (Transl.) kal wdavtTes k.T.A.) ‘and were all made to drink of one Spirit:’ repetition, in a slightly altered and more emphatic form,of the truth specified in the first. member of the sentence the accusative being the accus. of what is now well called by Kiihner, “the £xplanatory object ;’ Gr. § 410. 6; see also notes on Gal. vi. 6, and 238 IIPOS KOPINOIOYS WPOTH. ‘ lal yap TO cpa ovK eoTw ev pédos ahha TOAA. b] ‘\ ¥ ¢ ‘ 7 > 9: 26 "4 > Tie, Oa 15 ‘Eav eury 0 movs Ort ovK Ell YELP, OUK Eipl EK Lal \ al TOU O@paTos, ov Tapa TOUTO ovK EoTW EK TOD Winer, Gr. § 32. 5. There can scarcely be any reasonable doubt that the reference is not to the Lord’s Supper (Augustine, al.), but to that inward reception of the Spirit which was always associated with holy baptism (Chrys. preferentially, and appy. Cyril in Cram. Cat., Theoph., al.) ; two similitudes being in fact latent in the verse, the one, the out- pouring of the Spirit, in which, as in a bath, the recipient is immersed ; the second (comp. John vii. 37 sq., cited by Cyril), in which he drinks of the living water. ‘The use of the aorist, which appears to be very con- _clusive for the reference to baptism, cannot be explained away (comp. De W.) as due only to a structural parity of tenses. The reference to baptism is rightly maintained by Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 84, Vol. 1 p. 455 (Transl.}, and is well eluci- dated by Hofmann. Wordsworth still advocates the reference to the Lord’s Supper, but no such expres- ‘sion. as “being made to drink of the_ Spirit’ is applied in Scripture to the Eucharist. ‘ 14. Kal Vop tb oiye te T.d-] ‘For the Wody al: also is not one member, but many:’ elucidatory confirma- tion of the unity specified in ver. 13 _by_a recurrence to the same natural imagery as that in ver. 12. The use of kal yap is | similar to that in ver. 13, except, perhaps, that the ascensive force is not quite 80; “sharply marked. In _yer. 12 the Apostle simply touched on the ‘general contrast between the one’ ‘body and the many members. Here he returns to the simile to bring -out (ver. 14 20) the further illustra- members. Sd ion afforded by the varied offices and endowments of these many Various illustrations” of the simile will be found in Grotius, Wetstein, and others; the most pertinent are Livy, Hist. um. 32, Seneca, de Ird, 11. 31. 5. -s L_xelp, «.7-A.] ‘because Tam not the hand (more literally, hand without any article), I am not of the body :’ demonstra- tion (ver. 15-20), by means of illus- trations drawn from the foregoing simile, of the unreasonableness, on the part of those less highly en- dowed, in being discontented with the Spirit’s apportionment of gifts (v. I1),—in envying or begrudging those similarly (foot _and_hand, ear and eye, standing respectively ‘on _ nearly the sameleyel), but more highly, endowed (ver. 15, 16), —and gifts in contradistinction to others, all being..alike_necessary, and in accordance with the divine will (ver. 17-20). The civat ek Tov cdpatos implies ; dependence on, in the sense of forming a constituent part of, the body, and involves the secondary and derivative sense of the prepo- sition: see notes on Gal. iii. 10, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 47, s. v. ek. ov Tapa TotTo k.T.A.] ‘it is not, in consequence of this, not of the body,’ scil. this utterance on the part of the Toot does not carry > With it, or “Hecéssarily involve, ¢ Involve, a not- belonging to the body. the mapa marking primarily that which is alongside of, and thence, by an easy transition, that which becomes a concomitant, or even consequence (‘since this is so’), of the fact or _ RI..t5, 6, 17, 18. 239 - ¥ S YY ? oopatos. Kal édv elit TO Os “Ore ovK Eipi ddh- 16 4A ~ Oadpuds, odk eit ex TOV GapaTos, Ob Tapa TOTO > ¥ > ™ , 7g ‘ A > ovK €oTW €kK TOV THpaTOS. €l OAov TO THpa 6pOad- , m™ ¢€ 3 , > > , A, 6.2 “A }0s, TOD 7 aKOr ; El OLov AkOy, TOD H OTdpNats ; VOY 17 18 18. viv] So Lachm., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort (with marg.), on pre- ponderant authority: Rec., Tisch., vuvf. The less frequent use of vuv) 5é than voy 5€, when the particle is used in logical sense (see Kiihner, Gr. § 498. 3), may be admitted to have some slight weight, as indicating the possibility of a correction (comp. ver. 20), but it does not seem sufficient to counterbalance the amount of external preponderance. principle referred to; see Donalds. Gr. § 485, Winer, Gr. § 49. g. ¢, and Hofmann in loc. a ence between thi n and 1a TovTO, to which it aibadl ap- proximates in meaning, is perhaps this,— that the | ks more sharply and directly the ground or motive of the “action, ~the former Clarom. (Vulg., ‘ ideo », It is some- what doubtful whether this Tast menmtber-ofthe-verse~is~to-be-takéen “Interrogatively OF affirmatively. The a ee interrogatives of of v ver. ae and 18— kal abtds oftw moreirar Thy ovyKpiow, Chrys: so too Bengel in loc., prob- ably derived from the earlier ex- positor. 17. el dAov Td cGya dp8arpds] ‘If the whole body were an eye,’ or, more exactl y eye (see_ ver. 15); tif | all were eye.’ The Apostle nowWputs forward two hypotheses—each shown ee absurd by the associated ques- tion (ver. 17, _19), and practically contravened by the di vinely ordered, and actually existing, “condition of things (ver, 18, 20), tes manifest the unreasonableness of overvaluing any particular form of gifts, whether ¥v V 4 inight, at first sight, seem to sug. as possessed by themselves or as > envied in others. The absencé” of gest the Tormer, but;-on-considera-_ tion, would really appear more naturally to follow quietly r reasoned and alirmative ‘clauses just pre- ceding ; “observe verses 18 and 10. The analysis of the two negations (see Bengel in loc.) is also far more easy and natural in the affirmative, rather than in the interrogative, aspect of the sentence: see Winer, Gr. § 55. 9. a, Hofmann. in loc. 16. Kal éav «.7-d.] ‘and if the ear should say.’ In the former verse two analogous meé were put in contrast, here two organs of | of sense: pov Tos opddpa Smepexovor, GAAG Tots dAlyor avaBe- Bynkéot pOoveivy ecidPauey, 514 Toto “the auxiliary (iv; comp. ver. T9) gives the words more-terseness and Pen aad force. The tern] we G ora- a , Vulg.) is frequently used in dential Greek, and of course very commonly in the medical writers. Galen, im-his special treatise on this sense, makes the following comment in his opening words ; do0@pnow dvo- wdCovow of “EAAnves ob pdvoy thy diayvwow tTav bdouav arAAa Kal Thy divauiw, Opp. Vol. v. p. 354 (Paris, 1679). The reading is not _ perfectly certain : ‘: Lachm, Treg. “a > Westcott and Flért place 7a in brackets, but the preponderance of authority seems sufficient to warrant » \ & 240 TIPOS KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH. ‘ / lal S€ 6 Ocds Eero Ta péhy, Ev ExacTov aiTav, ev TO / 19 copar, Kaas nO€\noe. ci SE HY Ta TavTa ev an la) Loe \ y 20 pédos, 100 TO TOpa; vUY dE moka pev péAn, ev SE 21 copa. 21. our retaining the article without brackets. 18. vdv 8% & cdg x«.7.A.] ‘ But, as_it_is, God set (not set,’ Auth., al.) the members, each one of _ _them, in the.body,;.’ contrasted statement drawn from the actual’ ~ facts of the case; the viv having here, as in ch. vy. ve its logical “and argumentative sense (‘rebus sic comparatis,’ ‘ ut nunc est’), like the ‘nunc’ in the ‘nune autem’ (so Vulg., Clarom.) of the Latins ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 498. 2, and notes on 1 Thess. iii. 8. In the aorist ero the reference seems to be to_ to_ the original and primal constitution of things; hence the desirableness of preserving this in the translation. Chrysostom, with his usual acute- ness, draws attention to the inter- calated KaA@s elmev, Exactoy, em maytwy Td dvotl- Tedes evdencvipevos. It seems best to place the second comma after _aitay_(Weste. and Hort), instead of after odéuart, as it is usually found. Kaas AOEANCEV) ‘even as He willed if: ’ not merely a_repeti tion of the “Kabas BotrAcT aA of ver. 11 (De Wette, Alf., al.), but With a distinct referenéé~t6™~ the divine wiil as originally manifested, and as conditioning the whole matter. The distinction drawn be- tween @éAw and BovAouat in notes on ch, vii. 7 would seem to derive some illustration from ver. 11 and the present verse. 19. el S¢ Av«.rA.] ‘ And if they all were one member ;’ a second and éy €xagTov avTav: Ov dvvarar dé 6 dpOadpds ciety TH yeupi 6 ép0aduds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on hypothesis shown e asso- ciated question, and—(ver-—20) by _ +heactual_facts of the case; the 8¢_adding, with a slight contrast ' between what it introduces and what has just been said, a further demonstration of the unreasonable- ness.of oyervaluing any one form of spiritual gifts: see notes on™ Si ae 20. voy 8 mohha.«.rA-}< But, as it is, there are many members, yet but one body;’ antithetical statement of the actual facts of the case, as in yer... 18, _There is a little difficulty as to the reading. Lach- mann places in brackets, and Weste. and Hort in margin, the pév follow- ing the moAAd, but saly with BY, and some small amount of supple- mentary evidence. The insertion of the uévto_sharpen the antithesis, always implied in this familiar form (see Kiihner, Gr. S 6572. 3, ‘and comp. Donalds. Crat. § 155), is cer-_ tainly not improbable, but the ex- ternal evidence in its fayour “would _seem tobe too strong to warrant the rejection of the particle. If re- tained, the insertion of ‘ yet” imthe __second member (Auth.) seems called for, so as to preserve, in this Short sentence, the distinctiveness of the antithesis. Beza is thus right in changing the ‘unum aztem corpus’ of Vulg., into the stronger and mop contrastive ‘unum vero corpus : see ‘see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 1. p. 559; 566. 21. O8 S¥yarat x«.7.d.] ‘And XII. 19, 20, 21, 22. 241 Xpeiav cov ov« exw, 7) TaAhw 7 Kehahi Tots tociv Xpelav tudv odk Eyw* adda TOMO paddov Ta 22 vastly preponderating evidence: Rec. omits 6. The 8 that just precedes it is somewhat doubtful, as the external authority for its omission is of weight, and the insertion of the particle to facilitate connexion not improb- able. Hence it is bracketed by Lachm., and Westc. and Hort. The nature, however, as well as the clear preponderance of the external evidence, leads us to retain it without brackets. the eye cannot say to the hand, I on. é: transition, GAAG TOAAG WGAAov k.7T.A-] by means of the partly connective, cal, 5¢€ (almost here equivalent to our —— aig : Klotz, Devarius, Vol. a. p. 361, Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2), to a new, ‘ But, on the contrary, much rather... those members of the body which a = . * seem (or, are deemed) to be in- ally) moré are poison and can never be dispensed with: ’ theaaxe With its Tull separative and but—not—dissimilar, case, viz. that™ adversative forée("alind “jamrhoc ersons who prided themselves ‘esse, dé quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, their sup ‘higher gifts; Devar. Vol. 1. p. 2) contrasting the rs ~~ -_ = Beeeervcae teen and slighted those they deémed-to _true state of the case with the sup- be less endowed (ver. 21-20). pertin and not to beable is incompatible with the of the body, as implied in ‘the pre- ceding verse, and as a co- ov whole. FW wadwy) ‘or again ;’ to cite anotherinstance of a paraltél nature: comp. the similar use of the awddw in making quotations, as in ch. — _iii,20, Math. iv.”7, v. 33, Rom. xv. 10, and, in scan of its use in the N. T., see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 167. ‘The derivative meaning, ‘e diverso,’ which it sometimes has in Classieal_.writers (see Palm u. Rost, Lex. s. y. 2, Vol. 1. p. 636) is not found in the N. T., 2 Cor. | x: mF being no example of such a usage; see Meyer in loc. On the ea early and primary meaning of the par- ticle (‘non rursus sed retro’), see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. Vol. uw. p. 485. ETN A ee AN Tt The s in this verse are cases to which the ob divara is stri —to will, and yet —_—- oéuatos aobevertepa “bmdpx osed Casé plied in ver. 21, and the 7a dSoxovvta (00 al. 11. 9). 8 st studiously marking that it was so uae! in general estimation ; doxovc: yap eAdtTova, ovK elol dé, Theoph. ; comp. Chrys. in loc. What_ “very~idea_ particular members are alluded _to_ under OkovvTa méAn Tov €l Ss Lb ae 1 somewhat doubtful ~The TONG 7 of the case, precludes our refer- ring it to the hands~or feet men- tioned above. Nearly the Same might be said of allthe organs of — sense, éye, ear &c., the Obvious use- fulness_of Which would hardly have admitted of their being thus classi- fied ; ‘consider, too, in regard of the Syaewer. 21. We must_then con- clude that_these doBevéarepa per refer generally to those more deli-_ cate portions of our bodily structure, external or internal, which, com- pared with the more obyiouslyac- tive and energetic members of the body, might séém to be somewhat R 242 IIPFOD KOPINGIOY> HPOTH. Soxoovra peda TOU oap.aTos doDevérrepa umapxew he dvaryKaid éoTw* Kal & SoxoDpev dripdrepa eivat TOU oaparos, TOUTOLS TURD TEU TATE pay Tepiti- Oepev, KOTO. doxnpova pov evo xno vny TEpee 24 ooTepav EXEL, Ta O€ EVTY 7} }LOVa. NOV ov Xpetav feeble (observe the ‘ comparativus molliens,’ Beng.) and weak: comp. Theodoret in loc. except that he un- necessarily specifies. 23. Kal & Soxotpev k.t.A.] ‘And like the ra 5oxodvra in the preceding yerse_ clearly implying that the dis- tinctions alluded to were not due to anything in the nature of the ] parts, bu o the _general estimate of those who entertained the ques: _tion: comp. Chrysost. im loc. the Apostle here again studiously us uses 5; as implying. that, The 76 terysov We was merely relative. parts to which he was alluding were merely less honourable than other parts, Not ara in themselves; comp. Matth. xi. 11, xvill. 1, Acts xvii. 22, al., and see Winer, G7. § 35. 4. obs. The the parts here referred _to must, from the ec context, “be those Darts on on which clothing was worn, yet other other than the 78 éoxhuova (‘que vel ipso nomine ‘‘pudenda’’ ab omnibus vo- cari solent,’ another class: tpeis tdgeis éy rots Keyouevois, Theoph. On the subject generally, see the illustrative pass- age in Cicero, de Offic. 1. 35. TOUTOLS TLLAV K.T.A-] ‘these we clothe with more abundant honour ;’ the ‘semi-technical verb mepirideévat, inaccordance with its prevailing use (see the numerous exx. iSteph. Thesaur. 8. Vv. Vol. v1. p. 955), point- ing to the clothing customarily worn on these parts: comp. Matth. xxvii. 28, mepieOnray aiTe xAauvda Konklyyy, he parts of the body which we deem’ _to_be less honourable ;’ the Soxovuer Estius), which form and, for a similar metaphorical use, Esther i. 20, wegs0hoover tiwhy rots comp. Thucyd. Hist. wv. 87, th méder 7d KbéAAoTov dvoua mepiOcivai, and the pertinent exx. cited by Wetstein in loc. Th GOK Wova ApOv k.7.A.] ‘our un- comely—parts—have—more abundant meness ;’ the well-chosen words Te figxcipove (‘que inhonesta sunt,’ Vulg., ‘que pudoris sunt,’ Syr.), marking at once what the Apostle is referring to; comp. Rey. xvi. 15. The comment of Theod.-Mops. (Cra- mer, Cat.) is worthy of citation; aoxhwova, as mpos Thy kowhy oyu > / c ~ ayipaow éavTov: arokahel, GoTe TH pev pice ovK ert aoxipova’ eimep mepiccotépay exer Thy evoxnuootynv. The mepiocotépa eb- oxnpwootyn points to the car eful man- ner in which, though every other part might be left bare, these parts. would _be covered_(‘ ut membra que turpiter paterent, lateant honeste,’ Calv.), and perhaps also ‘non sine ornatu,’ Estius: comp. Chrys. iz loc. Hof- mann, somewhat singularly connects the pronoun with edioxnuocivny as an emphatic prefix, the €xe: having its derivative meaning of ‘involving, or ‘carrying with it’ (Heb. x. 35, 1 John iv. 18), and the judy in the next verse being similarly connected with what follows. Such a con- nexion has, however, no support whatever in any of the ancient Ver. sions, mars the simplicity of the structure, and secures no exegetical advantage. 24. Ta Se_ _svoxn bova | K.T.A.| ‘ but our tar comely parts 's Tae NO: need,’ Rell. 24; 24, 25: 243 eye. aida 6 Ocds cuvenéparey Td Tapa, TO borTe- 9 > , povpevy treprraorépay Sods TyLny, Wa py TXiopa 25 24. barepovnévw) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., darepodyti. scil. of any adornment (Clarom., Syr.), or, more simply, of anything (‘ nullius egent,’ Vulg.), the context easily suggesting what is referred to. The punctuation adopted in the text, _-according to which the present ch the presen lause is separated 7 by acomma and making GAAG K.T.A. answer answer to the ob xpelav Exe which precedes. “The ‘present clause completes, as as it “were, the description of the body and its |S my “ciple that was really fie he - whole. ‘ GAG 5 Ocds_ Oeds K.T.A.] ‘ Yea,;-God—tempered the bo _the body to- gether,’ the adda introducing in £ the form of a partial e contrast, and as a kind of fresh ies in the sumus dicturi,’ Klotz), the true principle which dominated the whole: comp. Luke xvi. 21, in which the 4AAa@ appears, somewhat similarly, to introduce a_ fresh picture (‘ yea, even the dogs, &c.,’ Rey.), in slight but traceable con- trast with what preceded. This usage seems to illustrate the truth of the remark, that 4AAa and 7Ayy are sometimes nearly alle “meaning; see Kiihner, Gr. § 535. 6. 5, Winer, Gr. § 53. 7. a, note. The verb cuvexépacey (‘ contemperavit,’ Vulg.) occurs in Heb. iv. 2. It is of not unusual occurrence in classical writers (esp. in Plato), but more usually in the sense of mixing to- gether specified elements. The idea in this passage is rather that of bringing a variety of parts into an harmonious whole. TO torepovpéeve x.T.A.] ‘ giving to that which suffereth lack mor ane ho ;’ circumstantial participle, specifying that which accompanied and was contemporaneous with the ouvencpacev Giving, while thus _tempering, &e. ¢e.;’ see Bernhardy, Synt. p. 383, Herm. Viger, No. 224, and notes on Eph. i.9. In all these cases the participle completes, as~it were, the picture, adding | the cir- cumstances and details (sometimes ey e really main matter) neces- sary for a clear perception of the whole ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 490. 1, 2 ie thang it is often hard to say whether it middle or passive; see Donalds. Gr. § 432, Kilner, Gr. § 376. 4) is perh pepe here used, in accordance | with the sort of sort Of personifics ation run- ning through | all ll this group of verses, as ‘marking the subjective feeling of the part or member (that not only lacked, but felf its lack) a little more forcibly than the tore- poovrt of Rec.; see, on this use, Donalds. Gr. § 432. 2. bb, Kiihner, Gr. § 375; 4 t the mepiocorépa Tih, here mentioned, is is, may be slightly doubtful. I It may Fererto the share the 7a doxijova had in 1 command of Gen. i. 28 (Hofmann), but much more naturally refers to ‘the details in yer. 23, which are here represented as fore-ordered in the original otyxpacis; ‘faciunt enim homines R2 244 TIPOS KOPINOIOY> ITPOTH. €v TO odpare, GANA TO AUTO brEp eek [LEpuye- 26 voow Ta. phn, kal €lTe TAO XEL EV y porn os, oupmaoxet TavTa Ta pedn* 27 tTavTa Ta pedn. €lTE Sofdlerat Eos, ovyxaiper vets O€ €oTE THp.a Xpiorov Kal 26. Sotdferat pédos] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on authority [A B N'] which, combined with the probability of assimilation to the first member of the verse, seems clearly to preponderate: Rec., Lachm. insert ¢v before méAos. quodam instinctu nature, cujus Deus auctor est,’ Estius; comp. Calvin an loc. 2 Lva fopa K.7.A.] —that-there should be no schism (or disunion) 1 un_ the body : s purpose (Sia rh; Chrys. ) of the amenéparey k.7.A,, viz. that there should be no such _ ae of union as alluded to in yer..21. Had it been otherwise either in in the original constitution n of the body or the instinctive feelings of man, the dudvora among the mem- bers never could have been main- tained: comp. Chrys. i loc. adda Td advTd «.T.A.] ‘but (on the contrary) should have the same common care one for another; the 7d aid, as its position “aes, being emphatic, and pa ENED its illustration from the bmép dA AwY which follows: the members were all to have a common interest_and €are,_and_ that 7d avTd pepiuvay was to be for the good of one another. The verb is here rightly in the plural, as the members are regarded in their plurality and separateness ; see Winer, Gr. § 58. 3. a, Kihner, Gr. § 365. b. 26. kal etre doxet k.7.A.] ‘And whether one member suffereth, a@ the members _sufferwith it; or a member receiveth glory, all the mem- bers rejoice with it:’ further state- wasnt or the eee the divine purpose carried out, that not only was there this common care, one for another, but such a sympathetic interdependence, that what is felt by one member is felt by all. The term dofd¢era: is appy. not to be limited to outward adornment but to be extended to everything — whether food, or outward appliéa- tion, or aught of a similar kind— that promotes and enhances the well-being of the member in question ; see De Wette in loc. This inter- dependence of the members is well illustrated in the familiar parable of Menenius Agrippa (Livy, Hist. 1. 32), and the sympathy of the whole body with the ailment of a part by Chrysost. 7 loc., and, briefly, but pertinently, by Plato, Repwobl. v. 462, where the sympathy of the whole body with a hurt finger is alluded to: compare also the illustrations in Wetst. i loc. 27. bycig S€ éore x.7-d.] ‘ Now _ ye arethe~body of Christ ;’ transi- tional application to the readers ; ver. 28-30 supplying the illustrative details. The words must not be rendered (a) ‘a body of Christ’ (Baur), the idéa”of-avplurality of cépara, which such a_ translation” would involve, being - obviously _in- admissible,—nor eyen (b) a‘ Christ’s © body’ (Hwald), as this throws the emphasis" where it is not intended, capa and wéXq—being clearly—the XII. 26, HEAN Ek pépovs. Kat ods 27, 20: 245 pev eto 6 Ocds vy TH 28 > , Le > / , id exk\ynoia mp@tov dmoarddous, Sevrepov tpodrras, prominent words,—but, ‘the body of dicative form (see noté ch. “ii. 16, Madyig, Gr. § 10. 2), or perhaps, more probably, to the principle correlation ation (see ni ve Ve which, esp especially in the case (es Sargasso account for the anarthrous form 0 the governing noun: see the notes of Prof. Moulton on Winer, Gr. § 19. 2, and § 20. 4. As a Church, the Corinthians were the body of Christ ; as being that local organiz under which the spiritual” capa Xpirod was to find ils appomted™ realization; comp. the very Sitititar orm of words in ch. iii. 16, and notes in loc. Kal péAn é« pépovs] ‘and apportioned mem one accord- eTs O > —scil. eac ing to his own platé TON 5 éx here marking appy. the deal place from which the Inatter_was looked at,—‘t members from a part of a whole point of view;’ see Win 9°53. 1 In ch. xiii. 9 the sense is simply ‘in part’ (‘theil- weise,’ Meyer); here, however, the contex text seems to impart to the words the further idea of accordance with a standard (see exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 430. on ge - g) and apportionment : they were not merely membérs-with- _out anything to distinguish one from “the other, but had each their allotted “place and function in “the body co: cor- porate. The Greek expositors see in the words a reference to the fact that the Corinthians were only a épos THs WayvTaxov Kemévns eKKAn- gias; such a reference, however, here has no bearing whatever on the context, which relates to the diversi- ties of ministration in the Church generally. Equally remote from the real Subject-matter is the thought which Hofmann finds in the words, —that the membership of individuals in Christ is only partial, and not completely manifested in any one. It is not the ‘quantum’ but the ‘quale’ that is here under considera- tion, 28. Kal ots piv e0ero x.7.A.] ‘And “some God appointed wm Ie ChiUiclig—ton~ i rst a secondly prophets &c.:’ illustration of the foregoing clause b; by a reference to the _divinely-appointed” order in ‘the Church generally (hence the in- Sertion of ev TH “exicAnola), the Kat having a somewhat fall ‘force,— ‘and, to make plain what Ix mean, &c,’— and subjoining the special and detailed to the brief and general ex- pression which precedes: compare notes on Phil. iv. 12. &y, it erved, has_no member Rabe Sie corresponding to it, ‘the J Apostle (as he dictated) probably intentionally” substituting an arrangement in order of dignity for the mere enumeration ’ which the first words would lead the hearer or reader to expect: see Winer, Gr, § 63.1. 1, where anaco- lutha of a similarly intelligible nature are specified. here, as_in the parallel passage, Eph. iv. ts is used in n_its highest in loc. i ane tb Tpopiras (preachers and expoundérs whospoke under the more immediate influence _of the Holy Spirit), see notes on Eph. iv. 11, and above, notes on term damroatdAous 246 IIPO2 KOPINGSIOY> IIPOTH. , , » , ¥ , tpitov Si8acKddovs, ereita Suvdpets, ererta Yapiopa- Ta lapatov, avTiapripes, KuBepvyces, yen ywo- 29 OGv. pH TavTEs ATOaTONOL; 47 TAVTES TPOPHTAL ; 7) 28. éreita xaplouara] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, with very greatly preponderating authority, as regards the choice be- tween the particles; Rec., eira ; some authorities omit, but with very clearly preponderating authority against them. ch. xi. 4. ___tptrov 88a0- Kdhovus] ‘thirdly teachers ;’? men who had 1 specially ¢ ‘the gift of d5ax4, but, who, probably, had neither the powers of spiritual utterance which distinguished the mpopirat, nor the particular gifts of administration which characterized those afterwards alluded to by the term xvBepyjceis ; compare Acts xiii. 1, and see notes on Eph, iv. 11. éqretTa _Buvdpers kit d} ‘then miraculous powers, then gifts—of— healing ;”~ transition, probably for the sake of rhetorical force and variety, into ab- stract forms, and specifications of the gifts rather than of the persons who were endowed with them: con- trast Rom. xii. 6 sqq., where the change is exactly in the converse direction. On the particular gifts here specified, see notes on verse 9 sq. GVTLANWeLs, KvBepyicets] ‘helpings, govern=- ae gs;” further” i EE i strict or an according to spiritual eminence probably not really ex- tending beyond the d:dacKndAous. The term dyTiAnuiis (in classical Greek ‘ apprehensio,’ whether with a phy- sical reference, as in Xenoph. Eq. 5- 7, or a mental reference, as in Timeus Locer. p. 100 B) has here its post-classical meaning of Boje (Zonar., Phavor.; see Ecclus. xi. 12, li. 7, 2 Mace. viii. 19, al., and Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 376), and in the plural (as here) denotes ‘hel = Dut question im all cases ings’ ( ‘ opitulationes,’ Vulg.; ‘ adju- toria,’ Clarom.; ‘ auxilia,’ Copt.), or, passing into the concrete, ‘ helpers’ (Syr-), ot “which those connected withthe visitation of the sick (Chiys-s "the verb is thus” used Acts Xx. 35), and, perhaps also, deacons (Beza), would furnish obvious illus-— trations. The next term xuBepyjces in its derivative sense of *#0vern- ings’ (Pind. Pyth. 10. 112, woAlev KuBepydotes), points probably to énickomo: and mpeaBirepot, or, more generally, of mpoiorduevor (Rom. xii. 8),—those who were invested with administrative powers and authority : compare moméves, Eph. iy. 11, and notes in loc. yévn yAwoodv] ‘different kinds of tongues?” sée ‘notes~on ver. 10. Those who were endued with the power of speaking — with tongues are placed last,—not, probably, with any intention on the part of the Apostle to reverse the _judgment of the Corinthians in re- ference to this gift (Est. ; see Chrys., Theod., al.), but simply, as in verse 10, on account of its sce character, which here naturally ré manded it to a concluding place” in the enumeration. ~26. iW wavres adadécrTodor x.7.A.] ‘ Are all apostles ?”-or;-more exactly, surely all are not apostles, with the desire of eligiting a 1. nega- tive reply ; see Winer, Gr. § aca b, Kiihner, Gr. § 587. 11. If it cannot be said that this form of involves a OS ‘\ : EI. 29, $0, gt. 247 mavres SiddoKahor ; py mavtes Suvdpets ; py) Wav- 30 TES Yapiopata €yovow lapdtwr ; 2) TavTEs yAdo- A \ , , a oas Nahovaow ; py waves Seppnvevovaw; Lprodre 31 dé Ta yapiopata Ta peilovas Kal ere Kal’ drep- 31. uelCova] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., «peirrova. —negative reply (opp. to Herm. Viger, No. 252) _yeb-everr—inr-those_cases e an affir ht a s e_natural, Tag speaker sealiz appears either, to esire a negative answer, or to re- such an answer as S probable ; ; “see Meyer on John iv. 29. In'this and the following verse the e Apostle Sate e-sislerci “of _ver.-27, at the Christians at Corinth were, like-the-members~of “the “natural “Body, members, each in his proper function and d place, of the spiritual Body. Hofmann, in accordance with his i interpretation of the é« pépous, appears to regard ver. 29, 30 as practically supplying the 5¢ element to the uéy element of ver. 28. The view is ingenious, but that on which it depends,—the particular meaning of é« wépovs,—does not seem in har- mony with the foregoing context: see notes on ver. 27. rr] TaVTES _ Svvdpers) ‘are all i=. —— ee, rattles?’ _scil. miracle-2 ‘workers, the Sao abstract. standing f for tl the concrete, as in ver. 28, and in the: nominative, as the other substantives inthe 5, 13, 27, Luke xxiv. 27, Acts ix. 36)—huuksithont sur apparent rest distinction _in meaning from the -simple,—and_more classical, foymy A a , > , HH Xm, yeyova Xadxos TXov 7 KupBadov ahadalor. ‘\ ‘ A kal éav €yw Tpodyrteiav Kal €d@ 74 wvoTypia TdvTa 2 kal Tacav Tv yrOow, Kal eav exw TAacay TV , \ ‘ ¥ miotw wote Opn peOrotavar, aydmnv Se p27) exo, 2. peOordva] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., on clearly proponderating ex- ternal authority, but with the probability against it of a change from a less that of ‘dilectio.’ The term ‘amor’ occurs in I Pet. i. 22, and 2 Pet. i. 7, and in each case in connexion with ‘fraternitas.’ The original word is not found in earlier Greek, though a@yardw and its compounds are sufficiently common: it appears first in the LXX. On this blessed gift, which, as Dorner well says (Chr. Doctr. § 132, Vol. rv. p. 237, Transl.), is ‘a law of life in the new creature,’ see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1.18, Cremer, Worterb. p. 12 sqq., Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 19, p. 165 sq., Transl.), and Rothe, Theolog. Ethik, § 143, Vol. 1. p. 515 sqq. (ed. 2). yéyova xadKkds AxGv) ‘I am become (mere) sound- ing brass ;’ se. ‘on the assumption just specified, I have become and am brass, giving a sound, when struck,—a sound only, and nothing more ;’ dwvhy pev adiels, cing 5é Kal udrny, Chrys. 7 xtpBadrov GArAaddfov] ‘or a (mere) clanging cymbal,’ ‘cymbalum concrepans,’ Jerome (in Gat. v. 26); as in the case of xaAKdés,—pdvov hxov amoTreA- ovy, vénua 5& ovdty emideckvipevoy, Severian (Cramer, Cat.); ‘sonus merus,’ Beng. The term a&AaAd Cov (insufficiently rendered ‘tinniens,’ Vulg.; better, ‘sonum edens,’ Syr.; ‘jubilans,’ Copt.; ‘ ringing,’ Arm.) seems used to mark the confused clanging sound of cymbals struck against each other. The verb pro- perly denotes the battle-shout of victory, but is sometimes, though rarely, used of the loud ery of grief - (Mark v. 38, Eurip. Electr. 843) ; see exx. in Steph. Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1393. For an account of the different kinds of cymbals, see Smith, Dict. of Bible, s. v. Vol. 1. P- 375- 2. Kal éav éxo x.7.A.] ‘ And if I should have (the gift of) prophecy, and (still further) should know all the mysteries (of God’s counsels) and all the knowledge (thereof),’ i.e. ‘if in this high degree I should have prophecy and all that is spiritually associated with it.’ The puorhpia here spoken of are the blessed mys- teries of redemption (ch. ii. 7, Rom. “xvi. 25, 1 Pet. i. 10 sq.), of the re- lations of Jew and Gentile (Rom. xi. 25, Eph. iii. 4 sq.), and, in a word, of the kingdom of Christ (7a wuort- pia Tis Bactkelas Tay odpayvay, Matth. xiii. 11), past, present, and future,— the things eis & émi@unotow tyyeAu mapakvyat, I Pet. i. 12. On the meaning of pvothpiov, see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 426 sq., and comp. notes on Eph. v. 32. Thv yv@ow being under the same regimen must naturally be referred to the same subject—‘ possess the spiritual gift of the fullest cognis- ance (nacayv rhv yv.) of all these Bd0n tod cod :’ see notes on ch. xii. 8. Twacav tiv mloriv] ‘all faith,’ scil. faith in its fullest form and nature,—not every form of it (wacay niotw), but all the fulness of it. The faith here specified is not ‘fides The racav 250 ITPOz KOPINGIOY: TIPOTH: Ne / > ‘\ aN , , kL. , , 3 ovdev cit. Kat eav opiow TavTa Td bTdpxYoVTa ‘ 2 cal 4 Lov, Kal ay Tapad® TO TOpd pov wa KavOnoopat, common to a more common form: Rec., Rev., Westc. and Hort, weOiordvewv. The form in -avw is, however, sufficiently common in the N. T. (see Winer, Gr. § 14. 1, note) to weaken the force of internal considerations, and so to favour the adoption of the better attested reading. The authority for civ in this verse is fairly good, and in the following verse better, but the authori- ties on either side so far fluctuate that it does not seem critically incorrect to adopt the form «al ééy throughout, which, taken on the whole four places, seems to be slightly the better attested form. salvifica,’ but, as in ch. xii. 9 (where see notes), wonder-working faith, faith of a spiritual potency sufficient to enable him who had it (the latent subject is the speaker,—not mloris, as appy- Evans) to move mountains : comp. Matth. xvii. 20, xxi. 21. Un- der the two heads, rlotis and mpopn- tela, the Apostle substantially in- cludes all the greater gifts; év Bpaxet mavTa mepicAaBe TA XaplouaTa, mpopy- telay eimoy Kal mloriw, Chrys. ovdév etpr] ‘I am nothing;’ not ‘nullius sum pretii apud Deum,’ Est., but, as the whole context im- plies, of no moral worth, utterly nothing: ov« ele 5é, Ore aydany ph éxwv puxpds eiut kal evreAns, GAN ob0€y eiut, Theoph. in loc. The form ovdéy is in the text of Steph. 1550, and rests on greatly preponderating authority : Elz., ovdév. 3. Kal av poptow x.7-A.] ‘And if I should give away in food all my goods;’ the verb pwpicew having here no accusative of the person (Chrys. supplies rods évnras, Theod. Tos Seoucvous; so Syr., Vulg.), as the thought turns more upon the doling out, and converting into food, of the rdvra Ta bmdpxovTa, than upon the recipients, who would not need to be specified : comp. Winer, Gr. § 32. 4. a, note. The verbis usedin Rom. x. 20, and not unfrequently in the LXX: it occurs in the medical writers, in Aristophanes (Eq. 712, Lysistr. 19, Thesm. 692), and in Aristotle (Hist. An. vu. 3), com- monly in the sense of feeding with Wopmot (dw), scil. ‘rei esculente frusta,’ Steph.: comp. Wetst. in _ loc: tva KavOrjcopar] ‘ that I might be burned,’ or rather, ‘to be burned :’ the tva being here used, as often in the N. T., with a pre- dominating idea of result, though not without a clear trace of associ- ated purpose: see notes on chap. ix. 18. On the use of iva with the future, see notes on ch. ix. 15, 18, and on Gal. ii. 4. The reading is doubtful. As far as the future is concerned, it may be admitted that the external evidence seems less strong than that for the solecistic future conjunctive (see Winer, Gr. § 13. 1.¢), but the improbability that the Apostle could have adopted such a form, and the possibility of itacistic error, preponderate for the future. Whether cavyfjowua (ABN; 17; Memph., Theb.; Orig., al.; Lachm., Westc. and Hort) may not be the true reading may be con- sidered fairly open to question. The objection is the flatness of the ‘ut glorier ’in this context; butsee Westc. and Hort, Vol.u.p. 117. This, with the amount of distinctly good and early external authority in favour of Kkav0joouat seems to justify us in RIEL: 4) 455: 251 ayarny Sé pr) exo, oder wpedodpar. ‘H ayarn 4 paxpoOupet, xpnoteverar’ 1) aydn ov Lpdot- 7 dydrn ov meprepeveTat, OV puaLodTal, OVK GTXN- 5 our retention of the more familiar verb. The Apostle is here referring, not to martyrdom at the stake, which was subsequent to the period now before us, but to cases like that in Dan. iii. (see ver. 28, rapédwKay Ta cduara adray eis wip) and 2 Mace. vii. 5 sqq. The cases of Calanus and Peregrinus mentioned by Gro- tius and others do not seem in point, nor even the ingenious refer- ence of Bp Lightfoot (on Col. p. 394) to the tomb of the self-immo- lated Indian at Athens: the Apostle would much more naturally have in his thoughts examples from the history of his own nation. 4-7. Characteristics of Love. 4. pakpoOvpet, xpnoreveTar) ‘is long suffering, is kind :’ cardinal characteristics of love, naxpo@uula and xpnorérns ; succeeded by characteris- ties expressed on the negative side (ver. 5. 6), and followed by further characteristics on the positive side. In paxpobuvuety the prominent idea is that of gentle and forbearing patience, which épe yevvalws rot méhas Te CAaTTépara and, as Origen (Cram. Cat.) truly says, is a verit- able kapmrds tov Mvetparos. Chryso- stom misses this tender and gracious aspect of the noble word, confound- ing in fact ‘longanimity’ [comp. Brown, Vulg. Errors, t. 3, ‘the long- animity and lasting sufferance of God’) with ‘magnanimity ’ (7d yap paxpdy, Kal péya Aéyerat): comp. Theoph. in loc. On the meaning of the word generally, see Cremer, Wirterb.s. v. p. 289, and the notes and reff. on 1 Thess. v. 14, and on Eph. iv. 2. The distinction between pak- podvula and mpavrns is drawn, in the main correctly, by Theoph. on Gal. v. 22, merciful delay in the inflic- tion of the mpoohxovaa dixn being regarded as the characteristic in the former case (see notes on Gal. y. 22), complete remission of it, in the lat- ter. In the verb xpnatrever Oat the leading idea is gracious kindness and benevolence: comp. Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. 1. 14, xpnorevodueda adrois kata Thy edomAaxviay Kal yAuvKUTHTA Tov Tojocavtos juas. The form is only found here and in the Eccl. writers. On the meaning of xpnordérns, see notes on Gal. v. 22. 4 dydmrn ov meptrepeverat] ‘ love vaunteth not itself, is not boastful;’ this being appy. the original meaning of this late and hybrid word (comp. Lat. ‘ per- perus,’ ‘perperam,’) and forming a kind of link between the preceding (Aor, and the succeeding puctotrar: envy leads to vaunting and boastful- ness, and vaunting to inflation and pride. So rightly, Goth. (‘ni fléu- teith’), Arm. (‘is not haughty’), Ccum., dAaCovederat. Various other shades of meaning have been here as- signed to the word,—‘ agit perperam,’ Vulg.; tumultuatur, Syr. ; mpomereve- tat, Chrys. (comp. Orig. ap. Cram. Cat., moAvmparyovet),—its use, how- ever, in Polybius and Epictetus (Arrian), by whom it is associated with AdAos and moAvAados (see Steph. Thesaur. 8. v.), appears decisive in favour of the idea of vaunting and act- ing the part of the braggart; so Hesych., Suidas: see Suicer, The- saur. Vol. 1. p. 696 sq. On the force of the middle, as marking the appro- priation of the state or condition im- 252 TIPO2 -KOPINGIOY: TIPRTrHA. A ) C A ‘\ c a“ EJ Ev > me fovet, ov Lytet Ta EavTys, ov mapokvverat, ov do- , \ 4, > , \ ~ /, 6 yilerat TO Kakov, od xalpe emi TH adiKia, TVyYalpeL \ ~ > 7 4 id , 7 6€ TH adnOecia: wavTa oréye, TavTa ToTEveEL, plied in the active, see Donalds. Gr. § 432.2. bb,. The reading is not per- fectly certain: Lachm. and Treg. bracket aydi7 in this clause; Westc. and Hort omit the word,—but on authority which does not seem suffi- cient. Tisch. retains the word, but connects it with the preceding ov ¢n- Ao?, throwing back the second 7 ayd- an to od xpnoreverat (so also Lachm.), —but certainly not with any advan- tage in point of symmetry. 5. ovK doxnwovet] ‘doth not be- have itself unseemly ;’ whether in public or in private; od« aoxnudy TL mparre:, Origen (Cram. Cat.). The rendering of Vulg., ‘non est ambi- tiosa,’ is peculiar, and appy. sug- gested by the clause that follows, but lexically untenable. The idea conveyed is simply, that Love, not merely ‘non erubescit,’ or ‘pudore afficitur,’ Copt. (a meaning lexically tenable; see notes on ch. vii. 36), but does nothing that involves 7d &oxnmoy in any form; ‘non agit quod pudendum,’ Syr., ‘ni Aiviskoth,’ Goth. On the meanings of the word, see notes on ch. vii. 36. od Entei Ta Eavrtiis] ‘ secketh not its own things,’ scil. its own interest or profit (ch. x. 33); see ch. x. 24, and notes 77 loc. ov trapogt- vera] ‘is not provoked (to anger),’ the expressive mapotvvera being the direct opposite of the paxpoOumer in the preceding verse. It is thus more than ‘non facile concitatur ad iram,’ Estius: it implies that it gives way to no provocation ; comp. Chrys. 7 loc. od AoylLerar 7d kakdv] ‘ taketh no account of the evil (done to it);’ the verb Aoy{¢e- 0a being taken inits proper sense of ‘accounting’ or ‘reckoning,’ and the 7d Kady referring to the ‘ malum ab altero illatum,’ Beng.: comp. 2 Cor. v. 19, bh AoyiCsuevos avrots 7a TaparTéuata avtav, Rom. iv. 4, 6, al. Two other interpretations have been assigned to these words ; (a) ‘non cogitat malum,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., Goth., Arm.,—in the sense of not entertaining evil thoughts ; comp. Matt. ix. 4, év@up- eto0at awovnpt: (b) ‘non suspicatur malum,’ in the sense of putting the best construction on what might seem to be evil; ‘dubia in partem accipit meliorem,’ Grot., ovd5éy tmo- mrTevel Kata TOU pidoumévov, Chrys. ; comp. Theod. Of these (a) fails to maintain the full force of the verb and overlooks the rd kakdéy; while (6) equally misses the force of the verb and the article, and makes a statement, following pertinently the ob mapotiverat, merely feeble and general. 6. ot xalper err TH ASiKia] ‘7e- joiceth not in unrighteousness ;’ the article giving the abstract noun its most generic meaning: see Middle- ton, Gr. Art. v. 5. 1, comp. Kiihner, Gr.§ 461.1. It is thus too narrow an interpretation to refer it to aduc/a of which others are the victims, Tois Kak@s maoxove1, Chrys. ovyxatper 5 TH GAnGeta] ‘ but re- joiceth with the Truth ;’ the abstract substantive being here almost per- sonified ; comp. Rom. vi. 12. It has been doubted whether 7 aA7@eia is not to be here understood as in a kind of opposition to Tf adicig, and so as haying a moral meaning,— XIII. 6, 7, 8. , > , , c 4 mavre edrile, TavTa vropever. cuvevppa'verat rois Kadois, Theod. : comp. ch. y. 8, Rom. ii. 8, in which this use of dA7@ea is clearly to be recognized. As, however, the struc- tural relation between the clauses is not odh—4GAAa but od —5¢,—in which the 5 has merely that partially connective, and partially oppositive, force which so commonly marks the use of the particle (Winer, Gr. § 53. 7),—it seems better to regard the clause as not -involving any direct antithesis, but simply as adding a fresh thought— rejoicing with almost personified Truth. Under this aspect it appears still more natural to regard 7 aA79ea as the Truth, se. the truth as contained in the Gospel ; comp. Eph. 1. 13, Col. 1.9. Evenif the antithesis had been studiously marked (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 12), the latter meaning of 7 GA70ea would still seem the more natural : comp. Meyer im loc. On the dative, as governed by oly in ovyxalpe, see Winer, Gr. § 52. 15. 7. wdavra oréyer] ‘beareth all things ;’ practical manifestation of the inworking of the gospel truth. The mdyra is of course to be under- stood of all things to which the associated words can in any degree properly apply, here kay goptice 7, Kay émwax07, Kav bBpes, Khy wAnyal, Kay Odvaros, kay driody, Chrys.; but there is no need for limiting or over- carefully defining the noble hyperbole. The verb oréyerv may mean ‘ tegere,’ Beng., al., but is much more natu- rally taken in the same sense as in ch. ix. 12 (where see notes), scil. ‘sufferre,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., Goth., Arm., and the Greek expositors: so, in the adumbration of these verses in Clem.-Rom., 1 Cor. cap. 49, mavTa 253 ‘H aydrn ovde- 8 avéxerat. There is thus an ascent, as it were, through faith and hope, from the simpler oréye: to the nobler and more expressive broudver. This and the following terms, as Harless well observes, all imply that love preserves its peculiar essence in con- stant struggle against what is hos- tile: see Chr. Ethics, § 47, p. 390 (Transl.). TavTa TLoTeveL| ‘ believeth all things ; entertains no distrustful feelings; dwevdq vou! ce Tow ayanéuevovy, Theod. To this the mwdavra éAmifer, applicable to the future as well as to the present, naturally and climactically, succeeds. On this text, see a good sermon by Farindon, Serm. xc. Vol. m1. p. 547 sqq. (Lond. 1849). madvtTa wmopéver] ‘endureth all things ;’ with the brave patience which is the essential idea of the N. T. irouovh : see notes on 1 Thess. i. 3, where the meaning of the sub- stantive is fully investigated. The brouwéve: points more clearly than the oréye: not only to the present, and the trials it may bring with it, but to the future, and to an enduring courage, which ‘having done all, stands firm to the end (Eph. vi. 13). The Greek expositors seem to refey the different statements in the verse too exclusively to the human object of the love (tov ayamrépevov, Theod., Chrys.; tov Guaprdvovra, Phot.) ; Estius and others (in the case of the last three verbs), too exclusively, to the ‘ officium charitatis erga Deum.’ As the mdyra clearly indicates, both are included. Love to God and to our neighbour are closely inter- twined; comp. I John iy. 20, 21. 8-13. The ever-abiding nature of Love. 8. ‘H dydarn IIPOS KOPINOGIOY2 MPoTn. mote Tinter. elite S€ Tpodyreta, KatapynOycovTar: eiTe yNOooal, TavoovTar’ ElTe yvaous, KaTapyn- 9 Onoera.. &k pepous yap ywaoKopev Kal éK .épous 10 mpodntevopev: Grav Oé EMOy TO TEhELOV, TO EK Epos 8. «lrret] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority ; Rec., éxmimres 10. téAeiov, Td ee wépous] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. inserts tére before 7d €k pépous. ovSémore wlarer] ‘Lovenever falls,’ scil. remains ever firm, ever holds her place: comp. Luke xvi. 17, Tod véuov lay Kepatay meceiv. The read- ing éxmimre: appears to have some- what more of an ethical tinge,— ‘never fails,’ ‘never falls away’ from her true attitude and mission; ov diadverat, ov diakdmrTeTa TE Pepe, Chrys.; comp. Rom. ix. 6, bx ofoy dt bre exmémtwxey 6 Adyos TOU Ocod. Theodoret, however, appears to re- gard it as little more than synony- mous with the true reading zimre, seil. BeBata ‘semper locum suum obtinet,’ Beng. The ovdérore may be used with some rhetorical force rather than the simpler o¥morte or od ... woré (2 Pet. i. 21), the ovdérore implying the ‘gar nicht einmal’ of the German (see Kiihner, Gr. § 537. 4); but it must be observed that the ovmore (in its resolyed state) is only used once in the N.'T. while ov5émore occurs fifteen or sixteen times. etre Sé peéver Kal dGodAevTos, ampopntetar, KaTapynOricovrar] ‘but whether there be prophecies they shall be done away with ;’ enumeration, by means of the cor- relative disjunction (efre... efre.. etre: Winer, Gr. § 53. 6), of three of the xaplouata mentioned in ch. xii. 8, 10, which, notwithstanding their great importance, were still only mpéckapa, and passed away when the need for them in the Church had ceased. On the word karapyetv (a favourite word with the Apostle, used by him twenty-five times), see notes on Gal. iii. 17; on yvaos, see notes on ch. xii.8 ; and on mpopyreiat and yAéooat, notes on ch. xii. 10. 9. é« pépovsg yap x.7.A.] ‘ Kor we know (only) in part, and prophesy (only) in part :’ confirmation of the statements in the foregoing verse in two of the particulars, the third (yA@cout) speaking for itself, as by its very nature transitory and partial. Knowledge and prophecy, xaplopara though they be, are, in the present dispensation, éx wépovs, and so must pass away and give place to the 7d TéXevov which the 6 aiwy 6 méAAwy will bring with it; mep) yap wéAAovTos elmev xpdvov, Orig. (Cram. Cat.). As the order shows, the emphasis rests on ek wépouvs. The expression occurs in ch. xii. 27, but in a somewhat different sense; see notes. On the meaning of ex pépovs as applied to prophecy (its historical limitations), see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 123, obs., p. 235 (Transl.). 10. Stav 8 E€AONn Td TEAELOV «.7.A.] ‘but when that which is per- fect shall have come, that which is in part shall be done away with :’ con- trasted statement of the future, and of the mighty changes that it will bear with it: when the Lord comes, then 7d ex wépous will necessarily be done away with. Chrysostom, fol- RIE 9) 2p TT, : #2. 255 , 4 ¥ , 5 , c , KatapynOyoerar. OTE Hunv vyTLos, EAddovY ws Vy- II Tos, eppdvour ws VyTLOS, EdoyiLounV ws VATLOS* OTE yeyova avyp, KaTypynKka Ta TOV vyTiov. Brérouey 12 II. €AdAouy ws vipmios, eppdvouy as vijmios, eAoyi Suny os virios] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority : Ree., &s vimios éAdAour, ws vimios eppdvouy, ws vimios eAoyiCouny. ire yéyova] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., dre 5& yéyova, lowed by Theoph. and (cum., draws a distinction between rpopnreta: and yA@oou, which, he says, would be superfluous when the faith was fully established (ricrews mavtaxot diac- mapelans mwepitT) Aorrdy), and vous, which, so far as it is wepixh, would be done away with at the Lord’s coming. This sort of distinction as to the time of the 7d katapyeiodat is not in any way im- plied in the present passage, which simply draws a distinction between that which is before the Lord’s coming and that which is after it. After the mapovoia, prophesyings, tongues, and eyen knowledge itself, all of them really being ék pépous, will be done away with; 6 yap uéAAwy Blos roitwy dyvevdehs, Theod. in loc. Hofmann urges that what is done away with can only be the three gifts as now exercised, on the ground that in the illustration that follows the speaking, thinking, and reason- ing continue, though in changed forms. This is clearly to overpress an illustration, and to introduce con- siderations which are alien to the simple contrasts between the present and the future, and the broad and general tone of the context. Il. re AuNv vitios] ‘ When I was a child;’ illustration, not im- probably suggested by the use of TéAevos in the preceding verse, vijmios and réAews being contrasted terms both in St Paul’s Epp. (ch. xiv. 20, TolTwy 7 xpela Eph. iv. 13, 14) and elsewhere; see the exx. in Bleek on Heb. v. 14, and comp. Trench, Synon. § 22. On the later form juny, see Winer, Gr.§ 14. 2, and notes on Gal. i. 10. é€AdAovv &s vitos K.7.A.] ‘I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child;’ so Syr. and Arm., the verb ppovety here appa- rently marking simply the exercise of the (developing) ¢pzjv, and the AoylCec Oat, the exercise of the under- standing and judgment. In Rev. the reference is made to the feelings, ‘I felt asa child’ (‘videtur referri ad affectus,’ Beza); but a more dis- tinctly mental operation seems in- volved in the word and in its use in the N. T.: ‘significatur judicium mentis de rebus,’ Est. In AoylCer@at there is the further idea of calcula- ting (Arm.) and judging; not ‘ cogi- tabam,’ Vulg., but ‘ ratiocinabar,’ Beza, Beng. The reference of these terms to the yA@oou, mpopnretat, and yvaots of ver. 8 (Theoph., Gcum., Beng., al.) is forced, and in no way suggested by the context. bre yéyova dvijp k.t.A.] ‘now that I have become a man I have done away with the things of the child ;’ the absence of any particle making the contrast between the then and the now more marked and emphatic. The Apostle passes into the perfect rather than the aorist, as thereby marking not only the state that had succeeded, but was now the continu- 256 IPOS KOPIN@IOYS MPOTH. ‘\ » cee / 5 - MD 6 , A , yap apte 8v éoomtpov ev aiviypar., TOTE d€ Tpdcw- » , Tov Tpos TpoawTov' apTL ywaoKw eK [Epous, 13 tore S€ émiyvdoopar Kaas Kai éemeyvdaOnv. vuvi ing and permanent state: the perfect, as Hermann precisely says, ‘ tempus significat preteritum terminatum presenti tempore, ita ut res, que perfecto exprimitur, nune peracta dicatur, illudque jam, peractam rem esse, presens sit,’ de Emend. Rat. p. 186 (cited by Winer) ; comp. notes on Eph. ii. 8. For a sermon on this text (Christian manhood) see Newman, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 389 sq4- (Lond. 1835). 12. BAétopev yap x.7.A.) ‘ For now we see in a mirror, in perplex- ing form;’ confirmation (ydp), not of the preceding illustration (per se), but as elucidating the cardinal state- ment of ver. 10, by a further state- ment of the two characteristics of our present knowledge, as 80’ éodrrpov, and év aivtywatt. We see God in a world which imperfectly reflects Him, and in an enigmatical form,—a form which he only can understand who takes account of this imperfect re- flection, and the necessarily con- ditioned nature of the self-revelation. The 80 éoédatTpov may mean ‘by means ofamirror’ (Wordsw., Hofm.), but is more naturally taken as refer- ring to the illusion under which what we see appears to be on the other side of the surface, and as it were through it; see Winer, Gr. § 47. i. On the mirror (corrpoy cannot lexically have any other meaning; see James i. 23) of the ancients,—a highly burnished plate composed of mixed metal, — see Smith, Dict. of Bible, Vol. 1. p. 382 9, Winer, R. W.B. Part 1. p.476. The év aivtyparte is a difficult expres- sion, alvryua meaning properly ‘a riddle’ (ppdacs emirndevpery cis aod- petay, Phavor.),—a meaning strongly maintained by Meyer, both here and in the passage which was certainly in the Apostle’s thoughts (Numb. xii. 8, ev efSer at od BV aivvyudtwy),—but, in this particular place, clearly in- volving a somewhat forced inter- pretation: we can hardly speak of ‘seeing anything in a riddle.’ On the other hand, the current adver- bial translation (aivrywatinds, atvey- fatwdas) practically confuses the thing seen with the mode of seeing it. In this difficulty it seems best to refer aivvyya to the puzzling and enigmatical form (comp. Dio Cass. Hist. Rom. 1m. 3 Fragm., 7d rijs xolpov atvvyua) seen in the mirror, and to take the preposition as mark- ing the sphere to which the BaAérew was limited,—‘ in a mirror, (and) in a form of baffling significance,’ ‘in frisahtai,’ Goth.: comp. Hofm. im loc. On the meaning of apr: (‘just now,’ ‘modo’), see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 6, and comp. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 18 sq. wtov tpds tmpdcatrov] ‘but then [when the perfect is come, ver. 10] face to face,’—face meeting face, mpdcwmroy being nom. in apposition to the subject of BAérouey (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 57. 10), and the expression itself Hebraistic; comp. Numb. xii. 8, oréuanataoréuararanow TOTe St 1pdo- aie éy efder kal od BY aiviyudrov. émiyvdcopat Kabas Kal étreyvaa- O@nv] ‘I shall (fully) know even as I was (fully) known ;’ viz. by God (comp. ch. viii. 3), at the time that His saving knowledge was directed to me, and I was called, and con- § As eerste i 257 dé pever wiotis, édtis, aydry, Ta tpla tadra: verted; airés pe eyvdpice, pnoly, Chrys. On this knowledge, see Har- less, Chr. Ethics, § 18, p. 159 sq. (Transl.), comp. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 458, Vol. m. p. 484 sq. (ed. 2). It is quite clear from this passage that the compound éemywécxew (Goth, ufkunnan, as contrasted with the simple witan) is stronger than the simple form (consider Rom. i. 32, 2 Cor. vi. 9, al.) and, as such, here studiously used by the Apostle, though in many passages (comp. e.g. Col. i. 6 with 2 Cor. viii. 9, 2 Pet. ii. 21 with Rom. iii. 17) it can hardly be expressed in English without ex- aggeration.. Here ém is probably in- tensive (axplBedy twa onpalver Kad éxlracw évepye'as, Eustath.), rather than merely additive or directive, but the shades of meaning between the simple and compound are so delicate that it is not in all cases possible to speak with perfect pre- cision; see esp. Cremer, Wérterb. p. 158. On the use of «alin com- parative sentences like the present, comp. notes on Gal. iv. 3. 13. vuvi 8 wéverx.7.A.] ‘ But, as it is, there abideth faith, hope, love ;’ the vuvi being logical (not temporal : comp. ch. xii. 18, 20), and the 5¢€ contrasting the abiding nature of the three virtues with the transitory character of the gifts (ver. 8 sqq.). The péve: thus stretches onward into the world beyond the present, and, in accordance with the whole idea of continuity of existence which ver. 10 sqq. indirectly bring home to us, conveys the deep thought that faith, hope (it may be, in some necessarily changed aspects), and love, will endure for evermore. Faith will become ever more intense, hope ever brighter, and love, the sustainer of both, ever more deep and ener- gizing ; ylvera: opodporépa, Chrys. According to the general view of the passage based on Rom. viii. 24, Heb. xi. 1 (Chrys., Theod.; comp. also 2 Cor. v. 7), the vuvt is regarded as tem- poral, and the wéve: as limited to the present state of being (Wordsw.), but the objection seems conclusive, that, according to this view, there is nothing whatever to show that faith and hope would be more per- manent than the xapiouara, for the termination of the xapicuara is in no way implied as prior to the érav 2A0n 7) Tédevov (ver. 10); and further, on the assumption that the 7d wei(ov of love depends upon its survival in the world to come, uéve: would really have two meanings, one in reference to faith and hope, and another in reference to love. We can hardly hesitate, therefore, to adopt the wider and nobler view of the passage above specified, enhanced as it also seems to be by the clause 7a tpla tava, which, it would seem, was spe- cially introduced to place on the same separate level the three great Christian graces, and almost to obviate the very conception of any difference in the 7d pévew of each. If the view here advocated be correct, it is obvious that mloris and éAms must be taken, each in its widest scriptural significance (opposed to Meyer, al.), and in its highest con- ceivable meaning. On the supposi- tion, entertained by many sober thinkers, that there may be spiritual progress in the future world, the 7d pevey, in the case not only of aydrn but of azioris and éAm’s, will become additionally intelligible; see Mar- tensen, Dogmatics, § 290. p. 485 (Transl.), Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 155. $ 258 IIPO2 KOPIN@IOYS TIPOTH,. rs \ 4 ee , petlov S€ tovtwv n ayarn. XIV. Avéxere HY ayamny, Gyrodre dé Ta mvevpatika, paddov S€ va mpodyrev- 3, Vol. rv. p. 432 sq. (Transl.). peiLov 8 TrovTav 4 ayamn] ‘and the greatest of these is love ;’ the 5€ appending a new thought, the tovtwy being the partitive gen., and the comparative used because aydrn is contrasted with mioris and éAmls taken, as it were, together, and form- ing one category; see Winer, Gr. § 35, 3. The grounds on which this inspired declaration has been sup- posed to rest have been very differ- ently stated. The most natural ex- planation would seem to be that as ayarn is stated in this very chapter as ‘ believing all things and hoping all things ’ (ver. 7), it may be rightly deemed the nutrient and sustain- ing principle (if even not the root, De W.) of both faith and hope,— that which gives to faith all its energy, and to hope all its vividness of persistence. The opinion of Weiss (Bibl. Theol. § 93, Vol. um. p. 37, Transl.), that the 7d mei(ov depends upon love relating to the Church, faith and hope merely to the indi- vidual, is plausible, but does not emerge from the actual context. The true explanation may really lie deeper still, and may depend upon considerations in the mind of the Apostle which he has not disclosed. At any rate we cannot forget what another Apostle has twice said,—6é Ozds ayarn éor'v, 1 John iv. 8, 16. For a sound practical sermon on this subject, see Jones (of Nayland), Serm. 1. p. 1 sqq. (Lond. 1829). XIV. Resumption of the sudject of spiritual gifts, and demonstration that the gift of prophecy is greater Seek to prophesy rather thar to speak with tongues. To speak what is not understood does not edify, than that of speaking with tongues, whether in reference to believers (1-19), or to unbelievers (20-25). I. AtGkete THY Gyarrnyv] ‘ Pursue after love :’ counsel following imme- diately upon what has been said relative to love, and in terms (Siékere) perhaps suggested by the ért Kab’ brepBorhy bdov tyty Selxvupe of chap. xii. 31. The word is, how- ever, also clearly used as marking the émretauévny orovdiy (Theoph.) with which the pursuit must be carried on: comp. Phil. iii. 12, 13. The broad principle being now stated, the Apostle at once passes on to the various details. tnrotre && +a tmvevpatikd] ‘but desire earnestly spiritual gifts;’ the 6€ here marking that though they were to pursue after love, they were not the less to do what they had already been instructed to do (ch. xii. 31), viz. to desire earnestly the xap/cuata already spoken of, and especially the greater xap’cuata, of which two examples are now introduced, and compared with one another,—both being connected with speech and utterance. Between (nAody and die- kev there does not appear to be any difference, intensively considered, beyond what is involved in the very nature of the words: diékew marks the persistence, (nAovy, the energy and earnestness (comp. notes on ch. xii. 31), with which the object was to be sought: eomp. Plutarch, Mor. p. 448, 7d mp@rov Erovrat Kal (nrotow, torepoy Se kal pirovow. In the N. T. (as indeed in classical Greek) both in ¢jjAos and (jAéw the idea of emulation or envy is merged ie aed | | . XIV. 1, 2. 259 yte. 6 yap \adav yoooy ovk avOparos Nadel GAA 2 Oce, oddels yap axover, TVEVpare Se Nadel puoTHpia. 2. Oc@) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very dis- tinctly preponderating evidence: Rec., r¢@ O«g. in the really primary idea ((éw) of fervour or earnestness of pursuit: comp. Thucyd. Hist. m. 37, (ndodv Tovs Tay TéAas yduous, Eurip. Hec.255, Cnrodv Snunydpous tTimds. waAAov S$ va mpodntevnre] ‘but chiefly (desire earnestly) that ye may prophesy ;’ ‘in carrying out the general precept let it be especi- ally your care (éfapérws, Theoph.) to do so in reference to prophesying.’ The ta marks the purpose of the (nAodre, but not without that tinge of result which is so often to be traced in the use of this particle. In such cases the final sentence almost passes into the objective: see notes on ch. iv. 2, ix. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. 63. 2. I. 2. & yap Aadév x.7.A.] ‘ For he that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not to men but to God;’ confirma- tion of the maddroy 5& tva mpopy- tevnte, by showing the unedifying nature of speaking with tongues, at any rate as far as man was con- cerned; one so speaking speaks only to God, ‘ omnes linguas intelligenti,’ Beng. ovSels yap dove) ‘for no one heareth (him) ;’ confirm- atory of the foregoing, any intelli- gent hearing of what was so spoken being distinctly exceptional. The akovew here clearly involves the idea of ‘ understanding,’ but is used rather than any more definite word (olde, ver. 16; cvvlnow, Matth. xiii. 15; ywéoxe:, Acts viii. 30) as imply- ing sounds heard by the outward ear, though not by the inward ear of the mind. This use of dkovew cannot be called a Hebraism (for see exx. in Steph. Thesaur. 8. vy. Vol. 1. p. 1269, ed. Hase), but is cer- tainly used in the LXX (Gen xi. 7, xlii. 23), where yoy is similarly used in the original. mvevpaTte St Aadei pvorrpra] ‘but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries ; ’ the 6€, with an explanatory and faintly ratiocinative force (see notes on Gal. ii. 4), elucidating the ovdels yap akover, and forming with it a sort of compound confirmation of the first clause of the verse, each member of the statement being substantiated: ‘he speaks not to men but to God, for no one under- stands him, the spirit being that in which and with which he speaks, and the tenor of what he speaks, mysteries.” On this explanatory use of 5¢, not uncommonly found, as here, after a negative, see Kiihner, Gr. § 532. 2, and comp. § 526. The mvetuart (probably instrumental dat- ive, corresponding with the fore- going yAdéoon) is here the human spirit, that portion of our composite nature (see notes on 1 Thess. v. 23) with which the Holy Spirit vouch- safes to communicate, and which in this, as in numberless similar pas- sages, is regarded as filled by His presence; see notes on Phil. i. 23, 2 Tim. i. 7. and comp. Cremer, Worterb. 8. v. p. 509 sq. On the meaning of pvorhpiov in St Paul’s Epistles (something not fully com- prehensible by unassisted human reason), see notes on Eph. v. 32, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 5, Volum p. 88, and Cremer, Wéorterb. s. v. p- 427 sq. Both the matter and the manner of the utterance were such as to justify the statement in the 82 260 TIPO KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH. 3 0 O€ tpofytedav avOpdrrots hadel oikodpyv Kal Tra- 4 paxhnow kai rapapv0iav. 6 addv yoooy éavrov first portion of the verse; svoripia poeyyerat Sia rev yAwooay, Severian. On the speaking with tongues, see notes on ch. xii. 10, and comp. Mar- tensen, Chr. Dogm. § 186, p. 338 (Transl.), but observe that what is here mentioned, and that which is specified Acts ii. 4 sqq., however spiritually allied, are, as the inspired account clearly shows, in effects and characteristics unmistakably dif- ferent. 3. 6 8 ampodntetwov «k.7.dA.] ‘ But he that prophesieth (exercises the gift of mpopnrela, ch.’ xii. 10) speaketh to men edification, and ex- hortation, and consolation;? he builds up the inward life of his fellow-men, gives counsel to the mind, and comfort tothe heart. The three substantives are independent of each other (according to Beng., al., the first marks the genus, the second and third the special forms of it), marking the three principal manifestations in which the gift of mpopnteia shows itself, — ods aornpt- KTOUS oikODOMODGA, TOYS PadumoTéepous mapakadovoa Kal Sieyelpovoa, Tos dAryopdxous mapauvOovmevn, Theoph. Of these three manifestations, the first seems to refer more particularly to the building up and developing of the spiritual life of the soul (comp. Eph. iv. 16, and see Cremer, Worterb. S. V. oikodopéew, p. 451); the second, mapdKAnots (associated with oiko- Souh, in 1 Thess. v. 11), to all that is covered by the word ‘ exhortation ’ (scil. ‘ad studium bonorum operum,’ Est.),—not ‘encouragement’ or ‘comfort,’ as this idea appears in the word that follows (comp. notes ow Phil. ii. 1); the third, mrapadupia (Gr. Aeydu. in N. T.; associated with kfAnots, Plato, Rep. v. p. 450 p), to ‘consolation,’ — all that comforts, supports, and cheers ; see Phil.ii. 1, where the similar word mapapiéiov is joined with aydarn, and in parallelism with omAdyxva Kad oiktipuol. The verb occurs 1 Thess. v. 17, mapayv6- ela0e Tovs GAvyoWbyous. 4. 6 AahOv yAdoon x.7.A.] * He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edi- jieth the Church: ’ contrast between speaking with tongues and _ pro- phesying in regard of the first- mentioned and most inclusive of the spiritual elements enumerated in the foregoing verse. The one who speaks in a tongue ministers to himself otodoun,—not necessarily by any knowledge of the purport of what he says, but by the glow of soul associated with the exercise of the xdpicua. The omission of the article in the case of éxkAnoia (‘a church,’ Copt.; so Meyer) need not be pressed, éxkAnola being one of the very long list of words in the N. T. in which appellatives, which should naturally have the article as denoting natural objects, are still found without it: see Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, Kiihner, Gr. § 462.6. It may, however, be admitted that where, as here, the word in question does appear, by the very tenor of the context, to be used in a clearly general sense, the writer, by a correct literary instinct, drops the article. In such cases the true mode of expressing this in English (where idiom may not allow of the omission of the article) is by the often generalizing ‘the’ rather than by the numerically allied indefinite article: consider Mitzner, ngl. ee pn © q ? = £ ' . BANS 8, Ay 5 261 oikoSopet* 6 Se wpodyntedov exxdynoiav oixodopel. Odea 8 rdvtas bas hadely yMiooats, paddov SE 5 iva mpodnrevnte: peilwy Sé 6 mpodytedwv 7 6 haldv yddooas, exTds el pr) Suepunvedy, wa 4 5. melCwv 5€] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on dis- tinctly preponderating authority : Rec., wel{wy ydp. Gr. Vol. m1. p. 144, compared with p. 176 (Transl.). 5. O€Aw 88 wavrag x.7.A] ‘ Now I would that ye all might speak with tongues;’ the 5é introducing a thought contrasted with the ob- vious tenor of what had preceded ; ‘I have implied that prophesying has a wider influence for good than speaking with tongues; I would, however, that you all had this latter gift.” So Chrys., ta ph vouicwouw, bri Backalywy aitois Kabaipe? tas yAdooas . . . diopPotmevos abtay Thy ixdvoidy pnot O ITPOTH. vov €, adeddoi, eav €Ow pds twas yhacnoais haar, TL bas apedjow, 2 Pel Joab) , KD > , A 92 , x eay py) vv Lahjow H Ev atroKahviper 7) EV yvooeL 7) 6. viv 5€) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., vuvt de. It may be observed that in the concluding clause Tisch. omits év before 3:5axf, but on authority which cannot here be regarded as sufficient. with which the known existence of the gift would obviously be out of harmony; see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2. b. obs., Stallb, on Plato, Legg. 958 v. The introduction of ‘ forte’ in Vulg. (‘nisi forte interpretetur’) thus ex- actly gives the turn that is instine- tively avoided. 6. vov 8 «.7.A.] ‘ But, as it is (as there cannot be general oixodouy without épunvela), brethren, if I should come to you speaking with tongues ;’ the viv being logical (comp. ch. y. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 8, and see notes in locc.), and the de mainly continuative (comp. x. 20), its slight antithetical force being just trace- able in the fresh matter which the illustration of the main thought of ver. 5 (viz. no profitable speaking with tongues without interpretation) here brings with it ; comp. notes on ch, xi. 28. The reference of the Apostle to his own case is not in- tended to disclose any personal experience, as in such a case an éyw would certainly haye been in- serted: it simply individualizes, and gives point to the statement; comp. ch. xiii. II, 12. éav py tpiv Aadtow «.7.A.] Sif I should not speak to you either in the way of revelation, or of know- ledge, or of prophesy, or of teaching :’ parallel clause, on the negative side, to the affirmatively expressed éay clause which had preceded, each being similarly dependent on the Tl tas wpeAnow: ‘what shall I profit you if I should come to you speaking with tongues,—if (having so come) I should not speak to you either in the form of revelation &¢.?’ At first sight it might seem more natural to consider the second clause as limiting the negative answer which the ti tuas wpeaAnrw might be conceived to suggest (‘quid utilitatis spiritualis ex me capietis ? Nihil profecto, nisi vobis loquar etc., prout sequitur,’ Est.), but this would imply more than the fore- going verse would justify. Nothing has yet been said sufficient to prove that the answer to the question must necessarily be in the negative. All that has been said is, that 6 mpopntevwy is greater than 6 AaAer yAéoous, except the one so speak- ing interpret. We therefore regard the hypothetical clauses as in paral- lelism and in similar dependence on the question which they respectively precede and follow: see Fritzsche on Matth. iv. 8 [so far as illustra- tion goes], Plato, Phed. p. 67 E, and Stallbaum i loc. The grouping of the four substantives adopted by Estius, and followed by most modern expositors, appears to be correct; amoxdAvis being that which zpopnrela discloses and elu- cidates (the prophet receives the revelation, and has the gift of con- veying its meaning to others), and that which is imparted by d8ax4, scil. ‘docendi gratia, per quam, id quod scimus, aliis yveéois REV a6, : 7. 263 ev mpodyrteia i) ev 8.5ayp ; Gpws TA apvya dovny 7 S.ddvra, etre addds cite KiOdpa, eav Siactodnv Tots Pldyyou py 8@, Tas yrorOyoeTar TO avdovpevory communicamus,’ Est.: comp. ch. xii. 8, Adyos copias. On the mean- ing of di5ax4, and its distinction from diSackadla, see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 2; and on the use of éy in reference to the substance or form (inward in the case of amoxdAvyis and yvdous, and externally disclosed in the case of mpodnrefa and d:5ax%) in which the Aadeciv takes place, see ch. ii. 7, and notes in loc.; compare also notes on 1 Thess. iv. 15, and Winer, Gr. § 48. 3. b. 7. Sues Ta Guvxa x.T.A.] ‘Though it be things without life, af giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, yet if they give no distinction to the sounds dc.;’ scil. ‘do not make one note distinct from another,’ ~8dyyos being the ordinary dative ‘of the recipient’ (Donaldson, Gr. § 453). The duws, as in Gal. iii. 15 (see notes), is attracted from its logical position, which really is before éeay x.7.A., to the words ra &luxa, on which the emphasis ob- viously rests, and on which the a fortiori of the argument depends: see Winer, Gr. § 61. 5. f, and comp. § 45. 2. b. The participial clause then follows closely, forming a se- condary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 442) of time or condition (‘ when giving’ or ‘if giving ;’ Winer adopts the concessive form, but less con- yeniently) relative to the ra tWvxa, and placing the argumentative illus- tration clearly before the reader. For exx. of this use of pwv? in ref. to music or musical instruments, see Matth. xxiv. 31, Rev. xiv. 2, xviii. 22, and the instances specified by Grimm, Lez. s.yv. The general term was probably here used that the more distinctive term ¢@dyyos (Wisdom xix. 17; comp. Rom. x. 18) might follow in association with diact0A}; dwvh being the sound generally, p@dyyot (raxeis kal Bpadeis dteis re wal Bapeis, Plato, Timeus, 80), the separate portions of sounds, the waves of the general stream. For an account of the two instruments here mentioned, see Smith, Dict. Antig. p. 720 sq., p. 1130 sq. StactoAyjv] ‘distinction,’ Rom. iii. 22, x. 12 (Hesych. didxpiois, dial- peots, Suid. Siaxepnois) ; here appy. not in any technical sense, or equiva- lent to dacrnua (Plato, Philebus, 17 c), but simply ‘ distinctionem,’ Vulg.,—‘ vocem ita temperatam ut discerni queat,’ Calv. The word is of common occurrence in later Greek writers. In medical writers it is used in ref. to the heart, arteries, &c., and is defined by Galen ‘as &pots Kat ofov eravdatacis Kapdlas, aprnpiay K.T.A., Def. Med. Vol. u. p. 255 (Paris, 1679). TOs yvooOyceTat K.7.A.] ‘ how shall it be known what is piped or what is harped?’ not ‘or harped,’ Auth., the article being studiously repeated in the original to mark alike in each case, pipe and harp, the abAovmevor or the KPapiCd- uevoyv, Meyer calls attention to the unsuitable nature of the illustration if the speaking with tongues had been merely speaking in foreign languages. It is certainly probable that the yAdooats AaAeiy in this Epistle is commonly used in ref. to ecstatic forms of prayer &c. (see notes on ch. xii. 10); but it would be over-pressing an illustration to use it as helping to settle a question so debatable as that alludedto. Un- 264 IIPOS KOPINGIOY2 TIPOTH. 8 7 7 Kfapilopevor ; ; Kal yap ea ddnhov dovny oahmuys 89, Tis TapacKevdo erat els ONeEov ; 9 ovTas Kal bmels Sia THS yAdoons eay 7) EVINLOV dd- yov dare, TAs yrorOyjoeTat TO Lahovpevor ; ErerHe 5 5 . 7 Qn lal J VA 4 10 yap els a€epa NadovvTes. TOTAUTA, EL TUYOL, yEvn known languages, volubly uttered, might be to those that heard them just as bewildering as musical sounds without intervals and proper articulation. 8. Kal yap éav GSnAov «x.7.A.]} ‘ For if the trumpet also give an un- certain voice ;’ the yap confirming by the mention of a yet further example, and the kat, with a slightly descensive force (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) marking that example as a still stronger one, the odAmryé not having, like the adAbs or the xiddpa, a regular succession of musical in- tervals. For an account of this in- strument, see Smith, Dict. Antiq. p. 1170. On the use of kal yap, see notes on ch. xi. 9. The order cdAmvyt wv (Tisch., Westc. and Hort) seems doubtful. The term a@ydos (Luke xi. 44, T& pynucta Ta %SnAa) marks the want of clearness in the sound, so that when the trumpet ‘spake unto the armed throng’ the hearer could not understand the meaning of its call; ‘ aliter enim Classicum canitur, aliter Receptus,’ Beza. tis TapackevdceTar els T6ACLOYV] ‘who shall prepare himself for war,’ ‘quis parabit se ad bellum,’ Vulg. There does not seem any reason for deviating from the usual meaning of miAcuos; the trumpet-call may just as easily be understood of the sum- mons to war as the 7d mapopyntikdoy béAos (lian, Var. Hist. 1. 44) to waxn and to immediate conflict: see Numb. x. 9, éav eg€A@nte eis méAcuov... kal onuaveire Talis oaA- muytt, Ezek. vii. 14, ocadmloare év odAmiyyt... Kal ovK €or Topevduevos eis Tov réAcuov: comp. also ch, xxxiii. 3. The preposition eis marks the direction and destination of the 7d see Winer, Gr.§ 49. a.c. 5, and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 219. 9. otTws tyets «.T.A.] ‘ So also ye, if by the tongue ye utter not speech easy to be understood :’ application of the foregoing illustra- tions to the Corinthians, the des and 6:4 tis yAéoons being closely associated (comp. ch. vi. 4), so as to keep up the force and pertinence of the illustration: ‘so ye too,— just as it has been shown in the case of these lifeless instruments,—if by that which is your organ of utter- ance, ye utter not intelligible speech, how &c.’ The term evanuos (Hesych. evdndos, pavepds, Suid. repipayyjs) is a Gm. Aeyéu. in the N. T., though of common occurrence from Aischylus downwards: it is here used in ref. to the clear (‘manifestum,’ Vulg.) and intelligible nature of the Adyos: comp. Plutarch, Mor. 776 B, where it is associated with évap@pos and yap els d&épa Aadotvres] ‘for ye will be speaking into the air :’ the auxiliary verb with the participle marking the state to which they will have become reduced; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5. This usage is not by any means un- common in classical Greek: see the numerous exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 353. 4. 3, and comp. Stallb. on Plato, mapackevaceca : Kai Tpaves. éceobe oie eee -* , mit! lv. Os 9, 10, 17. 265 cal | a , ‘\ > Se »” 8 > dover eiolv ev Koopn@, Kal ovdev adwvov. éeav ovv IT pry €id0 Thy Svvapw HS hovyns, Ecomat 7 da- 10. elely]) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éorlv, The avréy which Ree. in- serts after oddév is rejected by the critical authorities above mentioned, and upon nearly the same preponderance of evidence. Phed. 100 pv, Gorg. 500 c. On the expression eis dépa AaAciv, comp. ix. 26, and notes in loc. 10. tocatra, el tvxot, K.T.A.] ‘There are, it may chance, so many kinds of voices in the world:’ a further and more cogent example of the wholly unprofitable nature of this Adyos &onuos against which the Apostle is contending : from illustra- tions connected with sounds, he now passes to languages. There is some little doubt as to the exact meaning of the ef réxo. With numerals, it appears sometimes to answer to our ‘thereabouts’ (5éka pév, ei tixaL, Galen), but commonly conveys little more than the familiar acc. absol. tuxév (Kiihner, Gr. § 487. 1), ‘it may chance,’ ‘it may be,’ the ef with the optat. preserving its true idea of subjective possibility (Winer, Gr. § 41. 2): comp. ch. xv. 37, and the long list of exx. cited by Wetst. in loc. The rendering ‘ for example ’ (comp. Vulg. ‘ ut puta’) cannot be lexically substantiated, and appears only to have arisen from the common use of the formula in the mention of matters or details in regard of which the writer did not affect to be ac- curate ; comp. Arrian, /pict. m1. 1, mpds GAAo wey dpauey Kiva mepuxdra, mpbos AAO 5& immoyv, mpds BAAO GE, ei otw tbxo1, anddva (cited by Wetst.). The Versions all overlook the ex- pression, unless the ‘ ecce enim’ of Syr. is intended to represent it. So too Chrys., Theod.: Theoph., al., appy-. misunderstand it. The gwval here referred to are obviously languages (Chrys., al.), the term yAéooau being avoided as in this context likely to be ambiguous. To refer the term to the voices in the general realm of nature (‘voces naturales animalium,’ Caly.) is out of harmony with what follows. kal ovStv Gdovov] ‘and no kind of them is without its voice,’ scil. without signification, without its characteristic of intelligibility. Lan- guages are designed to carry mean- ing to those who use them and hear them. If they were &pwrvo they would cease to be gwrval at all: ‘quodvis eorum suam habet potesta- tem, dvvauw,’ Beng. II. éav otv ph €l80 «.7.A.] ‘Tf then I should not know the meaning of the voice:’ statement, by means of the collective ody (see notes on ch. vii. 27) of the obvious result as based on the preceding verse, and esp. the last clause of it,—the fact that no kind of the many languages in the world is devoid of significa- -tion, or fails to convey intelligible meaning. Things being so (odr), what the Apostle states must natu- rally follow, viz. that if, in any par- ticular case, he did not know the meaning thus conceded to exist, he and the one speaking the language, as far as understanding each other, would be BdpBapo:, the one to the other; comp. Biiumlein, Gr. Partik. 8. V. ov, 3, p. 179, whose discussion of this particle (though his concep- tion of its primary idea seems open to question; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 508, note 3) deserves careful con- 266 IIPOS KOPINGIGOYS “TIPOTsE. hovvT, BapBapos Kat 6 ahav ev euoit BapBapos. 12 ovTws Kal vuels, érel Lniwrai éore TvEvpdTwV, Tpds THY oiKodopny THs éxk\nolas CyTetTe va TeEpiC- 4 ‘\ c a -? / 9 13 cevynte. Ato 6 halav yidoon tpocevyécbw wa 13. Aid) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority : Rec., didzep. sideration. For exx. illustra- tive of this use of dvvauis (‘vis atque potestas, i. q. significatus, sermonis,’ Grimm), see Ast, Lex. Plat. s. v., and Grimm, Lez. s. v. BapBapos| ‘a barbarian,’ one speaking another tongue than those with whom he is in contact. In BdpBapos and the appy. stronger term maArlyyAwooos (see Pind. Istim. v. [v1.] 24) there is no idea of non-intelligi- bility of speech except so far as arises from the one speaking being a foreigner and speaking a foreign language: he was not a déuoyAwo- coos; compare Herod. Hist. 1. 158, BapBapous KaA€ovot Tos wh ohlor duoyAdaooous. The word is found in Sanscrit under the form barbara (see Curtius, Etym. § 273, p. 291) and may be either derived from sound or some primi- tive word, barbar or barb, implying stammering ; see Fick, Indo-Germ. Worterb. p. 132. év €ol] ‘im me,’ v.¢e. ‘in my judgment,’ unto me, ‘mihi,’ Vulg. The preposition here seems primarily to mark the sphere iz which, and thence, by a very natural transition, the sort of tribunal before which, the judgment was formed: see Winer, Gr. § 48. a. I. d, and comp. notes on ch. vi. 2. I2. ovTws Kal bpetsg x.7T.A.} ‘So also ye, since ye are earnestly de- sirous of spiritual manifestations ;’ general application of what has been already urged, the ofrws xa) being more inclusive in its retrospect than in ver. 9; ‘thus, in accordance with d€ mdvras of Aiyimriot the illustrations that have been given (ver. 6-11) of the general principle that what is spoken should be intelligible (compare Hofm.), seek &c.’ The clause é7el «.7.A. specifies why the Corinthians should take the counsel, here given, especially to heart. The expression mvevudrwy is not identical with téy mvevparinav (ver. 1; Syr., Copt.) but, as in ch. xii. 10, indicates the varied mani- festations wrought by the Spirit,— Spirit-workings, which esp. were the object (gen. objecti, Winer, Gr. § 30. I. a) of their (jAos: comp. Hofmann in loc., who, however, finds more in the term (‘spirits,’ rather than the one Spirit) than it is appy. intended to convey. olkoSopnnv K.7.A.] ‘seek unto the edifying of the church, that ye may abound (in them) ;’ the words xpos oikod, THs exkA, being studiously put forward as that which was to be regarded as the special object of the (nteire: mepiocevew suas ey avrois mpos Thy BovAouat, pdvov wy eis Th KoWh ocum- pepo Chrys. In the tva mepiocednre the particle has what may be termed its sub- final, or secondary telic, force, the purpose of the (nreire being merged in the object to which the action was directed: see notes on ch. iv. 2, ix. 18, al., and in ref. to this ap- proximation of the final sentence to the objective or illative sentence, Donalds. Gr. § 605; comp. notes on ver. I. 13. Avd6AadGv x.t.A.] ‘© Where- ° X / avTa peTaxepi(nte, ee, XIV. 12, 13, 14. 267 Suepenvedy. eav yap Tpotevxwpar yooon, TO 14 cr e » TVEDPAa jLov TpowevyxeTat, 6 SE vos mov akap7ds fore he that speaketh in a tongue let him pray (therein) in order that he may interpret ;’ exhortation flowing from what has preceded, and intro- ducing the explanation (vv. 14-19) of how it was that speaking with tongues must be regarded as un- fruitful: on the use of 5:4, see notes on Gal. iv. 31. The difficulty in the present verse lies in the inter- pretation of fva. At first sight it seems natural to regard it, some- what like the iva above, as intro- ducing the subject and purport of the prayer (see notes on Phil. i.9), and as specifying what the 6 Aaday yAdoon ought regularly to pray for: alrnaal, ono, Tov Sedwkdra cor 7d Tay YAwT- Tav xdpicua, mpocbeiva: Kal Td THs Epunvelas, Theod., al.; 7a map’ éavtod cicayérw, Chrys. But the objection seems conclusive that mpoce’dxer@at in this verse must be regarded as exactly used under the same aspects as the mpocetxwuat in the confirma- tory verse that follows, and so as indicating prayer in an ecstatic state, praying with tongues. If this be admitted, and it seems difficult to resist the argument, then iva will have its ordinary telic force, and the tenor of the exhortation will be that the speaker with tongues is to use his gift, not for display of his powers, but in prayer, in order that he may, so praying, have the gift of interpreting his prayer; ‘innuitur precibus hoc impetratum iri,’ Beng. : comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 9. 6, s. Vv. iva, but observe that the rendering there advocated (‘with the inten- tion, design, of interpreting the prayer’), over-presses the force of the conjunction in this particular passage, and misses the fine shade of thought—that it was by prayer rather than by any other spiritual exercise, praising, giving thanks &c., that he would have the power of épunvela. The gloss ‘that there may be an interpreter’ (comp. Ewald) cannot possibly be main- tained: the subject of Siepunvedy must be identical with the subject of mpocevxécbw. 14. é@av yap tmpocetvxopar yAéoon)} ‘ For if I should pray ina tongue :’ confirmation of the di- rection given in the preceding verse in the form of an individualizing statement asin vv. 6, 11; ‘ loquitur ex sui personéi, quo magis _per- suadeat,’ Estius. The yap is placed in brackets by Lachm., Westc. and Hort, but appears to have prepon- derating evidence in its favour. Its omission may have been due to the want of clear recognition, on the part of transcribers, of the logical nexus between ver. 13 and ver. 14. Td TVEULG Lov TpocetxeTaL] ‘ M1/ spirit prayeth:’ scil. the highest element of man’s composite nature (see esp. notes on 1 Thess. v. 23, and the reff. there specified), that in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is especially seen and felt ; ‘ Spiritus divini operationem suaviter pati- tur,’ Bengel: see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. iv. 5, p. 218 (Transl.),— whose interpretation, however, of this passage, though mainly right, is a little strained,—and comp. notes on Eph. iv. 23. The presence of the pronoun seems distinctly to preclude any other interpretation than that of the hwman spirit: the glosses of Chrys., al., according to which the mvedua is to be regarded as the xdpioua given by the Spirit, 268 fiPOS KOPINOIOYS TIPOTH. > , Dinas , A , I 5 ecOTW. TL OVV EOTLW ; mporevEomar TW TWVEVILATL, 5& dé kal T@ vol: palo TO j TpooevEomar S€ Kal TH vol: Palo TO TvEdpatt, are not compatible with the use of the plain possessive genitive, veri- fied as it is by the vods ov of the clause that follows. 6 8é vovs pov x.7.A.] ‘but my under- standing is unfruitful ;’ bears no fruit to others; dvnow ekelywy mh dexouevwy, Theod. To refer this to the speaker (€avrg, Chrys.) is clearly out of harmony with the whole tenor of the passage, in which oikodouy as regards others (vv. 4, 5, 6, 12) is the prevailing thought. The vois is here, as distinguished from the mvedua, the reflective and so-called discursive faculty, ‘ pars intellectiva ’ (Est.), the human mvedua * quatenus cogitat et intelligit’ (Olsh. Opus- cula, p. 156), its outcoming in intel- lectual action, the context here obviously giving it this more limited meaning: comp. Cramer, Worterb. s. vy. p. 439. The plain meaning of the verse would seem to be this,— ‘when my mvedua prays in that ecstatic form of devotion which is implied by praying in a tongue, my mind, in regard of its faculty of making the substance of my prayer intelligible to others, is simply un- fruitful, bears to them no edifica- tion or spiritual fruit.? That there is any pscychological impossibility, as Heinrici seems to imply, in such a view of the passage, cannot very reasonably be maintained. For the fuller and more inclusive meaning of the word vods in St Paul’s Epp. (it only occurs elsewhere in the N. T. in Luke xxiv. 45, Rev. xiii. 18, xvii. 9), see notes on Phil. iv. 7, and on 1 Tim. vi. 53; and in regard of the derivation of the word, above, notes on ch. li. 16. 15. cl otv éortv] ‘How is it then?’ ‘ how then does the matter stand ?’ ‘quid ergo est,’ Vulg.; see ver. 26. The gloss of Syr., Copt., ‘quid faciam,’ is not correct: this form like the closely allied ti ody (Rom. iii. 9, vi. 15: very common in classical Greek with an ov follow- ing; Kihner, Gr. § 386. 10) is simply designed to call attention, with some little alacrity, to the up- shot of what has been said; comp. Acts xxi. 22, where this formula follows a brief historical preamble. mpocevéonat TO trvevwarTe K.T.A.] ‘Twill pray with the spirit (se. with my spirit), and Iwill pray with the understanding also;’ the future here marking not mere futurity, but the principle which the speaker in- tended to follow (see Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 387. 4), and the second member placing in gentle contrast (3) the further principle which the speaker also intended to follow, viz. that of interpreting whatsoever the spirit (influenced by the Spirit) had given him the power of uttering. The datives are the datives of the istru- ment or proximate cause. On the exact difference between this andthe gen.with d:¢ (ver.19), see below, notes, and comp. Donalds. Gr. § 457. Warkd +o wvetpatr. «.T.A.]. ST will sing praise with the spirit, and I will sing praise with the wnderstanding also;’ %.e. ‘1 will not only sing praise with my spirit, but will interpret what I sing.’ The term WddAdAew (properly 7d bia dak- Tidwy emupavey TaY Xopdadv THs Adpas, Etym. M.) is here probably used without any reference to any instru- ment (comp. James y. 13), but as denoting the singing of praise: so XIV. 15, 16. 269. ’ a Ward S€ Kal 7@ vol. érel, Cav eddoyfs mvEvpart, 16 6 avat\ynpGv Tov Térov TOV idutov Tas EpEl 7d 16, evdAoyjs tvevuati] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, (with [@v] before mvevuari), on very clearly preponderating authority : Rec., evAoyhons TE Tvevmati, frequently in the Psalms (LXX) ; compare Psalm vii. 18, ix. 11, al., and, with an instrument specified, Psalm Ixx. 24, xevii. 7. The verb is associated with «xi@api(ew (Herod. Hist. 1.155), and with dew (Eph. vy. 19, Psalm xx. 14, xxvi. II, al.), and is explained by Basil (i Psalm. Xxix.) as dvawéurew Waruwdlas: see Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. um. p. 1569. The dé in this second member is omitted by Lachmann, and placed in brackets by Tregelles, and by Westc. and Hort. The external evi- dence may perhaps be considered preponderant. Internal considera- tions, however, seem to point the other way. 16. eel éav edAoyts k.T-A.] ‘else if thow shouldest bless with the spirit,’ ‘si id facias solo spiritu,’ Beng. ; justification of what has pre- ceded by the circumstances that must follow if the course specified were otherwise,—the ézei, with its usual causal and retrospective force, intro- ducing the alternative: see notes on ch. vy. 10, and Kiihner, Gr. § 569. I. i. The ‘cwexterum’ of Clarom., Vulg., is rightly changed by Beza into ‘ quandoquidem,’ which again naturally passes into the ‘ alioqui’ which represents the rendering of Syr. Itseems clear from the con- text that but little distinction can here be drawn between evAoyeiy and evxapioreiy (ver. 11); the former, probably, as Meyer suggests, implies thanksgiving under the form of praise to God, ‘ quia maxime laudari solet Deus grat&é beneficiorum ejus commemoratione,’ Estius. To refer this to the celebration of the Holy Communion (Blunt, Wordsw.) does not seem suggested by the context, unless we consider the edxapiorla below as more particularly referring to that service, instead of being, as it seems to be, perfectly inclusive and general: ey rats id{ais ebyapic- tlas irow mpooevxais, Cyril (Cram. Cat.). 6 dvatrAnpdv tov TéoTov TOD LELd TOV] ‘je that filleth the place of the unlearned ;’ ‘he that is one of the many present who, as regards spirit-moved utterance, is unlearned, and an idiérns;’ see Bengel in loc. There is some little doubt as to the meaning of rézov, viz. whether it has a purely local, or a derivative, meaning (‘ position,’ ‘situation ’); whether, in fact, it is equivalent to Spay or to rdtw. Examples of the use of dvamAnpodv have been cited with regard to each of these last-mentioned words (e.g. Plato, Tim. 79 B, advamAnpoiv thy édpav, and Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 2. 5, oTpatiwtov tdkiv dvamAnpody), and either view equally suits the tenor of the passage. The latter (raév) seems, however, more probable, as the Apostle is speaking throughout generally, and without any reference to locality : so,—as far as the mean- ing of ré7os is concerned, —distinctly Cyril (Cram. Cat.), év rdfet ri Tod Aaikod cefuevos: comp. Theod., idtérny KaAdel Thy ev T@ AaikG Tdyuari TeTA- yuévov. The use of idiérns is copi- ously illustrated by Wetst. in loc. It may mean either a private person, 270 TPOS KOPIN@IOYS TIPOTH. 7A yy ert A a Pay , ee 87 , x / > py) ™ ON evxaploTia ; eredn Tt eyes ovK > ‘ \ 1 lal nr 17 oldev* od pev yap Kah@s edyapioTets, aN’ 6 ErEpos 18 ovK oiKodopetra. edyapicT® TH Ow, TarTwY as opposed to one in office, in a pro- fession, &c., or, as distinctly in Acts iv. 13 (@ypduparo: Kal idi@ra), an unlearned or ignorant person. The former view is appy. taken by the patristic expositors (idimrns, Tovr- éotw, 6 Aaixds, Theoph.), and, very distinctly, by Wordsw., and by some modern writers: the latter, however, is more probable both here and in ver. 24; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1438. Sharply-marked distinctions between those in office and those not, do not seem to belong to this period. ars épet TO’Ap ry k.T.A.] ‘how shall he say the Amen at thy giving of thanks?’ scil. ‘how will he able to say it?’ ethical use of the future ; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, and comp. note on ver. 15. The expression auhy is the transliterated form of the Hebrew adverb jx; ‘ verily,’ ‘ truly ’ (LXX yévorro: from "79x, ‘ was firm’), which appears to have been used not only in the ratification of solemn oaths (Numb. v. 22), after denunci- ations (Deut. xxv. 15. sqq., Jer. xi. 5), in public worship (Neh. viii. 6), &e., but also in the general service of the synagogue and of the Temple, after benedictions or otherwise (Buxtorf, Lex. s. v. p. 62 sq. Lips. 1875: comp. also Wetst. a loc.), from which it passed, at a very early period, into the Christian Church, and formed the customary close (hence the article) of prayer and thanksgiving (Justin. M. Apol. 1. 65, Dionys. of Alex. in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vir. 9), of the Lord’s prayer (Cyril-Jer. Catech. xxi. 18), and— what is very noticeable—of the words of consecration in the Eucha- rist : see Swainson, Greek Liturgies, p. 68, 82, 130, 160, 198, al. The prep. éml with the dat. marks, as usual, the close connexion, in regard of position, of the auyy with the «d- xapioria: see Donalds. Gr. § 483, Kiihner, Gr. § 438. 1. 1, and comp. notes on Phil. i. 3. émret 87 K.7.A.] ‘ since or seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest;’ reason for the foregoing question. On the use and meaning of éze1d4, see notes on Phil. ii. 26. From this verse it would seem to follow that at least some portions of early Christian worship were extempore in their character; compare Bleek, Stud. wu. Krit. for 1829, p. 70. 17. ot pév yap Kad@sg x.7T.A.] ‘ For thou verily givest thanks well ; the other, however (the idiérns) is not edified:’ confirmatory of the preceding question, the yap having, however, more of its explanatory than its argumentative force; see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 618. The emphasis rests on the prominently placed pronoun, ‘thou, on thy part, givest thanks well (being under the im- mediate influence of the Spirit; mvevuatt Kwovmevos Pbeyyn, Chrys.) ; he, however, who fills the place of the unlearned is in no degree the better for it.’ The kad@s is thus in no respect ironical. The second member, it will be observed, has GAA answering to the preceding ev (Kom. xiv. 20, al.), instead of the more usual 6é¢, it being the intention of the Apostle to give the statement it contains greater force and promin- ence: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p- 3 sq. 18. edxaptotd TO Oc@ «.T.A.) ‘I thank God, I speak im a tongue XIV. 17, 18, 19, 20. 271 tpav paldov ydooyn aha: adda ev Exkdyoia 19 Od\o révre Aéyous TO vot pov adjoa, va Kal » , *» , , > , ah\ous KaTHYHTw, 7) LUplous Noyous Ev yhooon. T f tl > / ‘\ , , lal ity =e dha ee Aderdot, pr Tadia yiverbe Tals 20 sying, for be:ievers, and even for the unbelieving. 18. 7@ OcG}] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds mov. In what follows, yAdéoonis adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg. (with margin), on what seems pre- ponderating authority: Rec., Rev., Westc. and Hort, (with marg.), yAdoous. On AadAG@ there can be no doubt: Rec. alone adopts Aadéy, but on very patently insufficient authority. 19. 7@ vot] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 5a rod vods. more than you all:’ concluding statement (again in the form of a reference to himself personally) of the general sentiment embodied in the last five verses, viz. the indis- pensable need of speaking vol, as well as yAéoon. The words mdvrwv buay wadAoy k.7.A., regarded logically, form the objective or expository sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584) de- pendent on the preceding eixap- io7@, but, being appended without the usual relative particle 671, acquire a greater force and directness: see Winer, Gr. § 60. 9, and for exx. of this omission with ofuat, olda, 50a, «.7.A, Kiihner, Gr. § 584. 1.a. The MGAAov x.t.A. implies that the Apostle not only had the gift, but had it ina higher degree: kal yap eyo KéxTnMat, Kal budv wAéov, Chrys. 19. GAAG ev exxAnola «k.T.A.] *‘Howbeit in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding :’ 4\Aa having here its full adversative force (‘aliud jam hoe esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. um. p. 2), and specifying what, in spite of the statement in the foregoing verse, was the real feeling of the Apostle on the subject: see Biumlein, Partik. S. V. GAAd, 3, p. II. In the expres- sion @éAw 4, the particle is regarded as a particle of proportion or com- parison, corresponding to the idea of choice, preference, &c., involved in the verb: see Kiihner, Gr. § 542. I. 2, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 589, and Winer, Gr. § 35. 2. On the meaning of év éxkAnala, see notes on ch. xi. 18. The Apostle says that he had rather speak with his under- standing, 7z.e. with the vods as the modifying instrument. The exact shade of difference between this and 51a Tov vods (Ree.) would seem to be this,—that in the latter case any possible idea of causation would be more distinctly excluded: see Donalds. Gr. § 457. tva Kal GAAovg Katnxow) ‘that I might instruct others also:’ pur- pose and object of this @éAev. On the use and meaning of karnxéw, which here, probably from the nature of the context, retains some tinge of its more restricted meaning (‘ voce instituo,’ Beza), see notes on Gal. vi. 6, and comp. Suicer, The- saur. Vol. 11. p. 70. 20-25. Profitless nature of tongues and superiority of prophecy, even in the case of unbelievers. 20. ASeAgol, py tratdia x.7A.] 272 IIPOZ KOPINOIOYS ITIPOTH. ; , ° ‘ lad , 4 pperl, GANA TH KaKkia vymidlere, Tats dé dpeow 21 Téhevor yiver Oe. * Brethren, be not children in your minds :’ continued exhortation on the subject of tongues and prophecy, in- troduced by the conciliatory a5 ke / / 9 > €v T® VOL yeypamtat ote Ev babes, but in your minds be full- grown (men) ;’ ‘do not be children in regard of this speaking with tongues, in regard of malice, how- ever, be very babes.’ The use of the dative xaxia is similar to that of gpecty (see above), but has less of the semi-local character, the present dative having passed by a natural transition into a simple dative of ‘reference ;’ comp. Phil. iii. 5, al. The form yvymdev is another az. Aeyéu. in the N. T., and of limited occurrence in general Greek: vymia- xevew (ra Tois yvytios apudCovra mparrew, Hesych.) is found in Homer, Il, xxii. 503; vnmidxew, in Apoll. Rhod. and Moschus. On réAeioz. comp. Eph. iv. 13 and notes in loc. ; and on xakia (‘ malice,’ ‘animi pra- vitas,’ Calvin; ‘ vitiositas,’ Cicero, Tusc. 1v. 15), see Cremer, Wirterb. p. 328, and notes on Eph. iv. 31. 21. év TO vopw yéypatrar] ‘ In the law it is written:’ scil. in the Old Testament, véuos being simi- larly used in this more inclusive sense in ref. to the Psalms; comp. John x.. 34, Rom. iii. Thy waraiay ypaphy mpoonydpeuce, Theod.; see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. i. p. 419. The passage referred to is Isaiah xxviii. 11, 12, in which the prophet is censuring the frivolity and perversity of the ruling classes of Judea, and retorting upon them in their own language: they complained of the iterations of the prophet’s commands; they were to hear this monotone in the harsh words of the Assyrian invader: see Cheyne 7 loc. The Apostle’s citation isa free, but substantially correct, rendering of the Hebrew : it closely approaches the rendering given in Origen, 9: vépov be XIV: 21, 22. 27° eo iy , ‘. s fr Ta | d , a Erepoylaaoos Kal év xetheow Erépwv haljow THO Aa@ TovTw, Kal od’ OUTS EivaxovaorTat pov, héyet Kvpws. @ote at yoooa eis onpetdv eiow ov Tots 22 21. érépwv) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- derant external, and appy. clear internal, authority: Rec., érépois,—a very obvious correction. Hevapl., in loc., with which it is noted that the version of Aquila mainly accords, viz. & yAdooas Kal ey xelrAcow éErépots Aadjow TE Aag TolTw. The purport of the citation seems to be, that, just as the Jews of old who refused to hear God speaking by the prophet ér €po- were made to hear Him speaking in —_the citation. the harsh commands of the foreign invader, so they who refused to believe now had to hear as their chastisement the (to them) totally unintelligible utterances of tongues and ecstasy. bru ev érepoyAdacots «.7.A.] § For with _ —men_of strange tongues and with _the—lips—of—strangers_will T speak unto this people;’ the Gr here appy. not being recitativwm but answering to the ‘3 of the original (‘yea,’ Cheyne; ‘nay,’ Rev.), and the év marking the personal sphere in which the action takes place: comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3, Heb. i. 2, and see Winer, Gr. s. v. ev, § 48. 3. a. The word érepéyAwooos, taken by itself, simply means ‘qui peregrina lingua utitur’ (Grimm), and is opposed to dudyAwooos. In the _-origineal—passage—it-refersto__the | Assyrian, whose language, thoug allied to the Hebrew, was” stith suf- _ ficiently different to Séel A Strange tongue. to those to whom it was to. _be spoken: see Cheyne im loc. Both_ the words, then, and the original context might seem to favour : the view of the speaking with tongue being. really speaking in Tori languages (comp. notes on ch. xii 10), and not in ecstatic utterances This, he however, ¥ wol over-press an illustration, was suggested to the Apostle rather by the analogy of his own ynmd(ere (ver. 20), and, by the \ words of the prophecy (ver. 10) just ] preceding The real matter ts,— not. the peculiar character of the utterances, -but.the simplefact that they were unintelligible to those to whom.they were spoken; added to which, perhaps, is the further.and more latent use _otthe—prophetic illustration that as speech ina strange tongue was a chastisement on unbelief then, so, to a certain whieh extent, it may be regarded as so now : comp. Hofmann in loc. Kal ov8’ ottws «.7.A.] ‘and not even thus will they hearken unto me :’ not even when they have been spoken to in the manner just speci- fied; ikavdy iv avrovs éxmdAnia 7d @atua, Chrys.: compare ch. xi. 28. The eicaxovocovra is no doubt de- signedly used as a stronger form than the simple verb (comp. LXX, otk HOéAncay akovew), but it must be remembered that there is no such stronger meaning conveyed in the original. The compound only occurs in four other passages, viz. Matth. vi. 7, Luke i. 13, Acts. x. 31, Heb. v. 7, but in all with a sense clearly stronger than that of the simple form: comp. Grimm, Lez. s. v. 22. dare al yA@oout x.7.A.] ‘ So then the tongues are for a sign:’ T 274 TIPOS KOPINOIOYS TPOTH. TirTevovoew adda Tots atiotols, 7 S€ Tpodnteta ov A t 4 > ‘\ “a ra 23 Tols amiotois adda Tols miaTEVOVOLW. "Eav obv s e, 3 , ba Ce A, ee \ , ovvehOyn 7 exkdynoia ohn Emi TO avTO Kat TaVTES consequence flowing from the tenor of the preceding citation; the éare, as usual, denoting ‘ consecutionem alicujus rei ex antecedentibus ’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. m1. p. 771), and when used, as here, with the indica- tive, implying that what is stated is a simple unconditioned fact; see Kiihner, Gr. § 586. 3, and notes on Gal. ii. 13. The Apostle states, as a consequence from what he has alleged, that the yA@éooa, in the forms now under consideration, not merely, are a onuetov, but, serve as a onuetoy, are designed to be such (Acts xiii. 47, Heb. vill. 10; see Winer, Gr. § 29. 3. a), without, how- ever, pausing distinctly to specify what peculiar aspect the onuetov was to be supposed to wear. This part- icular aspect has been very differ- ently estimated. The patristic ex- positors regard it as involving @atua (Severian) or éxmAnéiw (Chrys., Theod.,al.); others, as punitive (Beza) and judicial. That there may be this judicial aspect perhaps may be conceded from the tenor of the cita- tion, from the xAevacuds on the part of some at the first manifestation (Acts ii. 13), and from the ¢potow bri patveoOe of ver. 23: still, as the word onuctoy is, as Chrys. rightly observes, of neutral meaning, it seems best to leave it undefined, and as wearing one aspect to one class of &moro. and another to another. To regard it as practically otiose (De Wette, Hirzel, Stud. w. Krit. for 1840, p. 121 sq.), does not seem consistent with the tenor of the whole context. amiotevovo. «.T.A.] ‘not to them that believe but to the unbelieving : ’ ov Tos studied specification of those for whom the onpetoy was intended. The participle is perhaps designedly used, as including those who were morot as well as those who were becoming so. The &moro: are un- believers generally, the peculiar aspect of their amioria, whether due to ignorance, stubbornness, or an averted will, being left undefined. In ver. 23 it appears to have one aspect, in ver. 24 another. A Se apodnteta K.t.d.] ‘but prophecy is not for the unbelieving but for them that believe :’ contrasted statement as to prophecy, expressed in a still more general form, and obviously not flowing from the citation. We have no ground for supplying eis onueiéy ect in this second mem- ber (Chrys., Theoph., Hofm., al.), as it could not correctly be said that prophecy (as understood in this con- text ; see notes on ch. xii. 10) was designed to be a onpetor to believers : it was, and was designed to be, much more. Nor can the conduct of the amioros specified in ver. 24, be urged against the general statement of the clause: it was due, not to the mpopn- Tela as such, but to its effects as operative in the congregation, and manifested by its members. 23. "Eavoty ovvédOn] ‘Tf then the whole Church should come to- gether to one place:’ confirmatory illustration, flowing logically, by means of the collective ody (see above, notes on yer. 11, and on ch. vii. 27), from the preceding verse,—the pre- sent verse confirming the first state- ment in verse 22, af yA@ooa eis onuctdy Eig ov Tois TLaTEVOVOLY GAAG On the ém 7d adr, Trois amlorols, XIV. 23, 24. 275 Aahoow yhoooas, cicéhOwow Se ididra 4 ame- OTOL, OVK Epovow OTL patverDe; edv Sé mavres 24 mpodytevwow, eioehOy S€ tis amirtos 4 iSidrys, 23. AaAdow yAdoous) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very distinctly preponderating authority: Rec., yAdooats Aadadow. see notes on ch. xi. 20, and on ch. Vili. 5. Kal mdyreg x.T-A.] ‘and all should speak with;’ not necessarily, all at the same time, but, in the customary manner, and in all probability, in succession, one after another: comp. ver. 27, which would seem to be, not so much a wholly new regulation, as one confirmatory of existing prac- tice. eloéA@wotv Se «.7-A.] ‘and there should come in persons unlearned or unbelieving.’ There is here considerable difficulty as to the term idiérns, especially in its present connexion. It would seem prima facie natural to regard it as identical, in meaning and reference, with idiérns, ver. 16,—and so, as implying a member of the Chris- tian community, though, it may be, not yet baptized: idiérny Aeyer toy wh Baxtic8évta, Severian. When, however, it is remembered (1) that while in ver. 16 the particular form of expression toy Térov Tod idiéTov, taken in connexion with the con- text, seems to constrain us to re- gard the id:érns as in some sense a Christian, here there are no such modifying adjuncts,—nay that the context (id:a@7a: } &moro) distinctly points the other way; (2) that as ver. 22 only speaks of two classes miorevovtes and &morot, so, in this verse, which logically depends on ver. 22, only two classes are to be looked for, the éxxAncta, or believers, on one side, and non-believers on the other,—when all this is remem- bered, we can hardly resist the con- viction that in this verse and in ver. 23 the idiara are not Christians, but unlearned persons who belonged to the general ranks of the émorou, and are separately specified as being ignorant non-believers, rather than unbelievers and opponents: see Hofmann in loc., and the suggestive comments of Ulrici, Stud. wu. Krit. for 1843, p. 420 sq. otk épotow Sti palvecbe] ‘ will they not say that ye are mad;’ comp. Acts. xxvi. 24, and, as regards the general impression produced on the &moro, Acts ii. 13. Though the tongues are a onucioy to the un- believing (ver. 22), yet here, when numbers are concerned, and no in- dividual application possible, they become only eis onuctov avTiAcyduevov (Luke ii. 34), thus verifying the ovd’ oitws eicakovcovtat wov of the pro- phecy. 24. éav 8 wdvres mpod.] ‘ But if all should prophesy,—set forth, ( under the influence of the Spirit, vital doctrine and heart-searching truth ; see notes on ch. xii. 10. On the mdyres, see above, ver. 23, and comp. ver. 31. A lrtdTHs] ‘one unbelieving or unlearned:’ singular, and in a changed order to that in ver. 23, because in this verse it is the case of the &moros, rather than of the more neutral id:érns, that appears to come most into consideration ; f, ‘ idiota obiter additur, ob rationem ejus non plane disparem,’ Beng. In the former case when an influx of several of each class is alluded Tig G&trioTOS T2 276 TIPOS KOPINCIOY> TPOTH. > , ec ‘\ , > / e ‘ , ehéyxeTan UTO TaVTwY, GvaKpiEeTaL UTO TavTOV, lal / > a) \ U 4 25 Ta KpuTTa THS Kapdlas avTov davepa yiverar, Kat ‘ ‘4 lal OUTWS TETOV ETL TPOTWTOV TPOTKYVHTEL THD Oca, 25. Ta Kpurra Tis Kapdias] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. prefixes kal ofrw. In what follows, the order dvtws 6 Oebs is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., (omits 6), Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 6 Geds bvrws. to, those less opposed are specified first, and those more definitely hos- tile afterwards: both, however, form the same rough judgment on the manifestations. It is only in the case of individuals that the xapiopa exercises its blessed influence,—but it does so, even though that xdpiopa was not specially designed for the class (ver. 22) from which the indi- vidual came. The effect, however, on those for whom it was designed would be all the greater, and the correctness of the latter half of ver. 22 the more substantiated. [ ehéyxera imd twavrov}] ‘he is convicted by all:’ each one as he prophesies in order (ver. 31) brings home to him, with accumulating force, all his inward sinfulness, and reveals all the gloomy shadows that \ rest upon his inner life: compare John iii. 20. The case of Augustine is cited by Edwards in loc., but it can hardly be said to be parallel. It was some time (‘gradatim qui- dem’) before Augustine’s heart was opened, and before he passed from the words and language of Ambrose to the matter they set forth: see August. Confess. v. 24. avakptvetat tard tdavtev] ‘he is judged by all ;’ ‘dijudicatur ab om- nibus,’ Vulg., Clarom. Each inspired speaker in his avdxpiois of the human heart, its év@uuqcewv kal evvoiwy (Heb. iv. 12), so reveals to the &amoros 4 idiérns the inward state of his heart that he feels each utterance to be a very judgment on ( his own individual case; ‘ audientis conscientia judicium suum ex doc- trina concipit,’ Calv. On avaxpive- Tat, see notes on ch. ii. 15. 25. Ta KpuTTa TAS kap8lag | K-T-A.] ‘ the secrets of his heart are made manifest ;’ the inner thoughts, feelings, and movements of his heart are all set forth, so vividly and truly depicted in the addresses of the spirit- moved mpopjra, that the amoros or, it may be, ‘é:é77s, seems to see, as it were, all the hidden things of | his own heart (‘que prius in corde ipsius ita latebant ut nec ipse, qualia essent, agnosceret,’ Est.) laid bare to himself and to others. On \ the meaning of kapdia (the centre of feeling, willing, thinking, and | even of moral life), see notes on Phil. iv. 7, on 1 Tim. 1.5, and Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. tv. 11,p. 295 sq. (Transl.). k.t.d.] ‘and thus, falling down on his face he will worship God,’—thus eAcyxdmevos, avakpivduevos, and, as we might say, TetpaxnAiouevos (Heb. iv. 13), he will worship God, \ showing publicly by outward act (reowy «.7.A.) the depth and reality of his convictions. The participle megwy is here probably simply tem- poral, specifying the act closely preceding the mpocxtynots, and prac- | tically forming a part of it: see Acts x. 25, and comp. Donalds. Gr. Kal ovTaS XIV. 25, 26. 277 ft . atrayyé\\wvr OTe dvTws 6 Ocds ev bp eotiv. In your meetings § T( ov éotiv, adedhot; drav 26 observe due order, whether in speaking with tongues or prophesying. § 577- The construction of mpoc- kuveiy with a dat. is peculiar to later Greek ; comp. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 463. The verb only occurs herein St Paul’s Epp., but is used frequently by St Matth. (with dat. except ch. iv. 10) and St John (with both cases, appy. without distinction; compare John iv. 23), twice by St Mark (with both cases,—according to best reading), and occasionally (with an accus.; more often without any case) by St Luke: see Winer, Gr. § 31. 1. k. atrayyéAAov Sr x.7.A.] ‘proclaiming that verily God is among you:’ the participle here denoting the concomitant act (5a Tav Epywy mpdtepoy duodroyay, cita kal 1a tov pnudrwr, Chrys.), adding it, as it were, as a further detail: comp. Homer, Il. 1, 349, “AxiAAeds daxpuoas Etdpwy Uap ECeTo.. . dpdwy él olvoma mwéytov, and see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. e. This proclaiming would naturally be at the time of the Christian assembly, but might well also be elsewhere; ‘vel in ecclesid, vel etiam foras,’ Beng. Its tenor would be, that ‘ beyond all doubt (the évrws being prominent and emphatic; comp. Gal, iii. 21, and notes im loc.), God is in the midst of you:’ the éy duiv perhaps pointing more to the divine presence as recognized in the assembled body, than as felt to be in the souls of the mpopntevovres. The ev may here obviously have either meaning, in (‘in animis vestris’), or among (‘in ccetu vestro’): the latter perhaps as a little more in harmony with the depicted state of the now agitated speaker: his one feeling would be that, verily, ‘Deum adesse suis,’ Calv. in loc. 26-33. Regulations for the orderly exercise of spiritual gifts in Chris- tian assemblies, in reference to speaking with tongues and prophe- sying. 26. TC otv éortv, a&SeApol] ‘ How isit then, brethren?’ not ‘quid igitur facto opus est,’ Est., but, as in ver. 15, ‘how does the matter stand, after what has been said?’ the ody with the full | collective force calling the reader’s | attention to what has been stated, and what naturally flows from it: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 717 sq. The answer at once follows, begin- ning with the statement of the facts of the case, and closing with the in- dependent sentence mayta mpds oiko- doujv yiwécOw, which serves as a common rule for each specified case, and is practically the real answer: compare verse 12. ovvépxnode x.T.A.] ‘whenever ye come together, each one has a psalm ;’ ‘each one of those specially endowed has ready a psalm,’ the distributive éxaotos (derived from a root €[év], and a Sanse. root ka-s, scil. ‘ unus quotuscumque ;’ Curtius, Gr. Etym. No. 631) referring to the mvevparixol now under consideration, and the éxet seeming to imply that he had if, as it were, within (‘in promptu habet,’ Est.), ready to be uttered. The wWadubs here mentioned was | probably a hymn of praise, under the influence of the Spirit, and so extemporaneous in its nature, but, as yAG@ooa are subsequently specified, intelligible to the hearers: comp. ver. 15, and see Eph. vy. 19 and notes in loc. Tertullian (Apol. cap. 39) in describing the ‘convivia’ of the early Christians, notices how ‘ ut quisqne de scripturis sanctis vel de bTav 278 IIPOZ KOPINGIOY> IIPOTH. , y \ ¥ N ¥ auvepynobe, Exactos pahuov exe, Sidaynv Exel, amokahupw exer, yAO@ooar exel, Epunvelay eye 27 wavTa mpos oiKodounv ywéeobw. Eire yhooon Tis Lal ‘ 4, a ‘ ad “A 4 See / Nadel, Kata Ovo 7} TO ThetoTOV TpEls, Kal ava pépos, 26. €xacros] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre- ponderating authority: Rec. adds spar. The same critical authorities adopt the order amoxdAvpw Exer, yA@ooar Exe: (Rec. inverts the order), on very greatly preponderating authority; and finally, ywéc6w (Rec., yevéodw), on vastly preponderating authority. proprio ingenio potest, provyocatur in medium canere Deo.’ A sermon on this text will be found in Light- foot, Works, Vol. vu. p. 29 sqq. (Lond. 1825). SrSaxAv Exer] ‘hath a teaching ;’ not so much ‘a doctrine,’ Auth., Evans, which con- veys too much the idea of formulated dogma, as ‘an instruction;’ S:ddcKew amd xapiouaros, Chrys.: see ver. 6 and notes im loc. a1ro- Kddvwpev éxer] ‘ hatha revelation ;’ has a divinely inspired communi- cation, which he would most prob- ably deliver in the character of a mpopytns ; see below vv. 29, 30. yA@coouav éxer] ‘hath atongue ;’ te. Aadel yA@oon, ver. 27: has within him an utterance which will take the form of ecstatic speech. The Epunveia is appropriately next spe- cified, and the whole closed by the one great and common principle, which Chrysostom terms rod Xpic- Tiavigpov Tiv KpnTioa Kal Toy Kavdva, ? —Td Tos TAHCLOY 51a TWayTwY wpeEreEiv: comp. Theod. zm loc. On this rule and principle, and its practical ap- plications, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 38, p. 327 (Transl.). 27. ere yAGoon k.7.A.] ‘whether at be that anyone speaketh in a tongue:’ first member of a dis- tributiye sentence ; to which, how- ever, there is no corresponding member, the structural form being gradually lost in the specific instruc- tions that follow, and never resumed where it might have been originally intended to reappear, viz. in ver. 29. Various examples of anacolutha, more or less similar to the present, are noticed in Winer, Gr. § 63. 1 es kata So 7 K.T.A.] ‘let them speak, to the number of two or, at the most, three;’ ‘duo aut ad summum tres loquantur, scil. in uno conyentu,’ Est.; the kara being used in its distributive sense (Winer, Gr. § 49. d. b, Kiithner, Gr. § 433, 8. Vv. Kard, 3), and implying the limitation as to numbers in re- gard of the speakers. On this use of kara as involving the idea of a measure (‘down to’), see the careful comments of Harrison, Greek Prep. p- 326 sq. (Philadelphia, 1860). There might be many desirous to speak, but it was to be kata dvo0 } The verb Aadci- twooav is to be supplied after the kata 8vo, being suggested by, and naturally flowing from, the preceding AaAet: see exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 577. Deas Kal ava wépos] ‘and by twrn ;’ ‘unus, unus,’ Syr., the preposition here serving to note the manner in which the action was to take place (comp. ava kparos,’ ‘ in- tentis viribus ’); it was to be on the principle of each having his turn, ‘vicissim,’ Beza. The transition from this sense of the prep. to the purely distributive use (Mark vi. 40) To WAEloTOY TpeEis. =r ALV. 27, 28; 29, 30. kal els Sueppnvevérw: eav Sé pr) 7 Svepynvevrijs, 279 28 , > > ¢ e “A \ ¢ ‘ Lal ouydtw ev exkdnoia, éavT@ S€ Aadeitw Kal TO Oca. is easy and obvious: comp. Kiihner, Gr. 433, Ss. v. avd, 3, and see Har- rison, Greek Prep. p. 165 sq. Most of the interpreters call attention to the inference that may be naturally drawn from this clause, that the Corinthian speakers with tongues often spoke together and ovykexu- Méevws. els Steppnvevéetoa] ‘let one interpret ;’ one,—not two or more ; xpi) yap Tos wapdyTas voelw 7a Acydueva, Theod. 28. dav S ph FT Srepynvetirns] ‘but if there should be no iter- preter ;’ scil. if neither the speaker should be able to interpret (comp. ver. 13), nor any one of those sitting by: the words provide equally for either case. oLyatw év éxxAnota) ‘let him be silent, or (as better preserving the force of the pres. imperative) keep silence in (the) Church,’—scil. the speaker with tongues alluded to in ver. 27. The transition from one nominative to another is perfectly natural, and by no means uncommon in Greek prose: see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 67. I.c. On the expression éy éxxAngia, see notes on ch. xi. 18. éauTto St Aake(ro «.7.A.] ‘and to himself let him speak and to God ;’ the éavr@ being emphatic, and standing in contrast to assembled hearers (comp. ver. 26) in public. That he was to speak inwardly and inaudibly (‘ tacitus et in corde loquatur sibi ipsi,’ Est., comp. Chrys.) is not only not implied in the words, but really contrary to the use of AaAeiy in this whole passage, where it clearly im- plies openspeech. On the meaning IIpodjrar S€ Svo H Tpets dadeitwoar, ‘\ c » , 7 \ » 3 kal ot ado SiakpweTwoav’ eav S€ ado azro- 29 30 and derivation of AaAety (‘ vocem ore emittere ’), see notes on Tit. ii. 1, and on Col. iv. 3. The TG Oc@ directs that the utterance was to be poured forth, whether in ecstatic prayer, praise, thanksgiving, or otherwise, to Him who had given the gift. 29. Mpodfrat 8 x.7.A.] ‘And let the prophets speak, two or three ;’ the 5€ carrying on the directions to a new (‘novum quid accedit,’ Herm.) but connected class,—the mpopjrat. The direction is not so precise as in ver. 27, kata 500} Td wAcioToy Tpels. That, however, it was to be, as in the case of those speaking with tongues, ava wépos, seems clear from the fol- lowing verse: comp. Bengel. kal of dAAot Staxpivérwcay) ‘and let the others discern:’ the other ’ prophets, present but not speaking, | were to exercise the gift of diaxpiots mvevudtwy (ch. xii. 10; comp. Heb. v. 14) and test the words spoken (‘ dijudicent,’ Vulg., Syr.; ‘ examine,’ Arm.), whether they really came forth from the Spirit, or were only the imaginings of the speaker’s heart. What might seem a very different direction is given in The Teaching of the Apostles, ch. 11, mavta mpophrny AadotvTa év mvetuaTs ov meipaceTeE ovdé Siaxpiwetre,—but the cireum- stances are different, and the spiritual credentials of the rpopirns are tacitly assumed to have been known and re- cognized. It must clearly follow from this verse that mpopnrelaand didapiots mvevudtwy were very closely united. The prophets would seem to have had the gift of discerning, though not necessarily exclusively. On the % v') 280 [IPOS KOPINOIOYS TIPOTH. 31 Kahupby Kabynpeve, 6 TpATos ovyatw. dSivacbe yap Kal’ &va mavtes tpodyteve, Wa mavres pavb- , r 32 avwow Kal TdvTes TapaKahovTar’ Kal mvevpara nature of the gift, see notes on ch. xii. 10. 30. dav 88 GAN x.7.d.] ‘but if a revelation should be made to another sitting by ;’ further direction in the case of a spiritual communication suddenly made to one of the &aAdot mpopjra sitting by as listeners, the tertiary predicate cabnuéve (Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq.) simply marking the &Ados as, at the time, a listener, and not a speaker. The rule of the early Church, following that of the syn- agogue (comp. Luke iy. 16 sq.), ap- pears to have been that the reader or preacher should stand, and his hearers sit: comp. Justin Martyr, Apol. 1. p. 98 D, auiorducba Koh mdvres Kal ebyas meumouev. Prayer, it may be observed, both on the ord’s Day and during the whole period between Easter and Pentecost, was offered in a standing posture, in memory of the Lord’s resurrection; see Bingham, Chr. Antiq. xiii. 8. 25 6 TPOTOS otyaTo] ‘ let the first remain silent;’ scil. the one who was speaking prior to the amoxddvyis. There is some little doubt whether this cvydrw (ovynodrw would have settled the question) implies that the first speaker should stop at once, and give place to the other, or finish his discourse and then remain silent. The latter seems more natural. Some token, probably, would be given, by motion or gesture, that an amroxdAvyis had been vouch- safed to another of the mpopfra; this would be a sign to the speaker to close his address, and to let the newly-illumined succeed to him. The speaker with tongues was not to speak publicly at all if there was no interpreter (ver. 28); the prophet was permitted to speak, but was to prepare to pass into silence, when another had a revelation vouchsafed to him: comp. Chrys. i loc. 31. SUvacbe yap k.7.A.] ‘Hor ye can (thus) all prophesy, one by one ;’ elucidatory confirmation of the pre- ceding direction, the dtvacde hay- ing the principal, and zayves the secondary, emphasis: by one of the mpop77a:thus giving place to another, at the proper time, there would be the possibility of all exercising their xdpicua in orderly succession,—not, of course, in one and the same mavhyupts, but in it and others that might succeed it. The xa@ eva does not here coalesce with wdyres, in the sense of ‘ad unum omnes’ (De W.,— a meaning which would appy. re- quire the presence of yevdmevor; see exx. in Viger, de Idiot. 1x. 5. 7), but simply specifies the manner, in ac- cordance with the ordinary distribu- tive use of the preposition, ‘ singula- tim’ (Beng.), in which what the Apostle specifies would come true ; so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm. It thus corresponds with the kara dvo in verse 27; see notes im loc. The objection of Hofm., that the person of dvvace precludes its being applied more particularly to the prophets, does not seem valid. The Apostle addresses all, ver. 26, implying, how- ever, in the very verse, that he is also addressing them distributively. tva wdavres wavOdvwoty k.7T.A.] ‘in order that all may learn and all may be comforted :’ purpose of the successive utterances,—that all the hearers might have the better op- portunity of hearing, in the case of \ ATVs 32, 32; 38: \ 281 lal , c , > ’ > mpopytav mpopytas vToTaaoetay’ ov yap é€oTW 33 dxatacracias 6 Ocds adda eipyvyns, ws ev Tdcais some of these speakers, words that might teach and bear mapdxAnow (ver. 3). The verb mapaxadrcio@a probably here includes the mapauvé- fay as well as the mapdxAnow of ver. 3 (‘consolationem accipiant,’ Syr., Copt., Arm.), and is an expansion, on the practical side, of the fore- going wav@dvew; but in this verb it is often difficult to decide which of its two meanings ‘ exhort’ and ‘com- fort’ is to be preferred; the context being frequently the only guide: see notes on Thess. v. Il. 32. Kal mvevpata tmpodnTdav] ‘and the spirits of the prophets:’ further ground for the direction given in verse 30,—the subordina- tion to the will of the prophet of the spiritual movements of his own soul; as év abrots [mpophrats] by more pev ovyay, more Se A€yeww, Severian (Cram. Cat.). There is a considerable difference of opinion as to the precise meaning of the word mvevuara in this verse. The choice seems to lie between (a) the human mvevpara as influenced and filled by the Holy Spirit, Meyer, al., and (+) the movements and manifesta- tions of that blessed Spirit, as in ch. xii. 10. Both interpretations practically lead to the same general meaning; of the two, however, (5), which is the view of Chrys. (rvetua évraiba thy évepyerav Aeyet), Theod. (74 xapiouara), Severian, Theoph., al., is to be preferred as most in har- mony with the meaning in what may be deemed the primary and regulative passage, ch. xii. 10. tTpodytats btrotdacertat) ‘are sub- ject to the prophets;’ are in sub- ordination to them in whom they are manifested and operative, the present tense marking what regularly and normally takes place; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, and notes on Pil. iv. 7. It can scarcely be doubted that the mpop7rat in this portion of the verse are identical with the mpopjra in the former part, the substantive being repeated, rather than a pro- noun used, to give a rhetorical force to the declaration, the mpopnray and mpopitas standing in studied juxta- position. It has been thought, how- ever (Theod., al.), that what is here referred to is not the self-control inculeated by the ovydrw (ver. 30), but the fact of the one prophet giving way to another, on which assumption the mpopntav and zpo- ofras would refer to different per- sons,—the yielded-to and the yielder. This is grammatically possible, but logically improbable; the fact of such regular and customary yielding not really supplying any true reason for the direction to exercise self- control involved in the o1yérw. The articles are throughout omitted, as the statement is made in its most general form, and with a kind of epigrammatic terseness; compare Kiihner, Gr. § 462. h, i, Donalds. Gr. § 394, a. 33. od yap éotiv dkatactacias «.7.A.) ‘for God is not (a God) of confusion, but of peace ;’ confirma- tory of ver. 32, and resting upon a well-known principle of the divine government: the nature of God is antithetical to dxaracracla, God being essentially, to use the words of Theodoret, tis eiphyns 5 mpvravis, comp. Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20, Phil. iv. 9, 1 Thess. v. 23); peace is the moral element in which the Chris- tian has received his xAjais, ch. vii. 282 IIPOZ KOPINGEIOYS MIPOTH. n > , co c - Tals EKKANTLALS TOV GyLwV. 34 lal “ / Al yuvaikes €v Tats exK\notaus Women are to be silent in Church-assemblies, 4, > ‘ > ig > “a eg OlLYATWOAV °rcOU y2p EMLTPETETAL AVUTALS ade, 34. yuvaixes] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds spar. The same edd. adopt émitpémerat on very greatly, and éirotaccécbwoay, on clearly, preponderating authority: Rec., émirérpawrat, and brordoceo@ai. 15. The term dkatacracia occurs in Luke xxi. 9, where it is associ- ated with wéAcuos, 2 Cor. xii. 20, where it follows YOupicuds and guoiwois, and James iii. 16, where it is put on a level with (jAos and épifeia, In 2 Cor. vi. 5 the reference is appy. to the ‘tumults’ raised against the Apostle at Ephesus (Acts xix. 29) and elsewhere. The ren- dering of Vulg. (‘ dissensio’), Copt. (‘divisio’) is too weak: the true meaning is ‘ tumultus,’as Syr., Hth., or ‘perturbatio,’ Arm. The Apostle designedly uses a strong word ; there was at this time serious cvyxvais and tapax) within the Corinthian Church. &s év wdaoats x.7.A.] ‘as im all the Churches of the saints:’ appended statement, de- signed tacitly to contrast the examples set by all other Christian Churches in regard of reverence and order; aicxtvOnte oby iets mapa magas Tas é€xkAnolas moAiTevdmevat, Theoph. There is considerable difference of opinion as to the con- nexion of this clause. Lachm., Tisch., Meyer, al., prefix it to the passage that follows: Westc. and Hort attach it to mayres wavOdvwouy kal mdvres mapaxadGvra, placing in a parenthesis kal rvedu.—eiphyns. To both these arrangements, however, there seem valid objections; (a) to the first, as involving a general reference to the practice of all other Churches, when to some extent Corinth was confessedly an exception (ch. xi. 3), and as prominently lay- ing a greater weight on usage than the Apostle, in this Epistle, would haye been likely to use: (b) to the second arrangement, as, in a somewhat simple passage, necessi- tating a suspended thought, which really only weakens the force of the strong final (iva) sentence with which it would thus be associated. We therefore, with the early exposi- tors, and appy. all the Vv., connect | the clause with what precedes, and | regard it as supplying a sort of con- cluding semi-argument, somewhat similar to the ovdé ai exKAnoiat Tov @cov of ch. xi. 16. 34-36. Directions with reference to women. 34. al yvvaixes k.7.A.] ‘ Let the women keep silence im the Churches ;’ scil. in the larger and public assemblies of the Church, which alone are under consideration in this chapter: comp. vv. 4, 5, 12, 16, 19, 23, 26, and see notes on ch. xi. 5. It is probable that the Apostle had here especially in his thoughts the office of teaching in public: see 1 Tim. ii. 12, S:ddoKew This rule was carefully maintained in the early Church: see Const. Apost. 1. 6, and Cone. Carthag.1v.99. Among the Jews for a woman to read pub- licly the law involved a dishonour to the Synagogue: see Lightfoot, Hor. dé yuvairl ovK emiTpéeTH. XIV. 34; 35, 36. 283 ‘ e , ‘ ‘ « , , GNA brotaccécOwoar, KaNas Kal 6 vdpos Eyer. > , ~ / > ¥ ‘ 297 »” ei Sé re pabety Oedovow, €v oikw Tovs idiovs avdpas 35 erepwtdtwcav’ aicypdv yap €or yuvarkt hadeiv ev exk\ynoia. *"H ad’ tua 6 Méyos Tov cov e&fOer, 36 } eis Yas povous KaTHVTNTE ; 35. yuvaixl Aadeiy ev éxxAnala) So, as to yuvaiki, and as to the order of the words, Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., yuvaitly ev éxxAnola Aadciv. in h.1., Schoettg. Hor. p. 658. Kaas Kal 6 vépog Adyet] ‘as the law also says ;’ viz. in the primal declaration, Gen. iii. 16, ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’ On this more extended reference of 6 vduos, see notes on ver. 21. On the form ka0ds, see notes on Gal. iii. 6. 35. el S€ Te pabetv BéAovory} ‘And if they wish to learn any- thing:’ further direction, the 5€ appending slightly fresh matter, viz. that they were to put their questions év olkw, not év éxxAnolia. The read- ing is not perfectly certain: Westc. and Hort adopt pavédvew, but on external authority which does not seem diplomatically sufficient, and with internal evidence appy. point- ing the other way; the change from the aor. to the present being more likely, owing to the associated presents, than the converse. The distinction between the pres. infin. and aor. infin. after @€Aw and simi- lar verbs would seem to be this; when attention is to be directed to the procedure of the action specified by the verb, the present is commonly used; when simply to the action specified by the verb, the aorist is used ; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 7. c, Kiihner, Gr. § 389, rem. 8, and comp. Donalds. Gr. § 427. d. aloxpdv yap «.7.A.} ‘for itis a shame for a woman to speak in (the) Church:’ strongly-worded confirm- ation of the preceding direction, and preparing for the almost indignant question which follows. On the term év exxAnalg, see notes on ch. xi. 18. 36. "H ao’ bpOv x.7.A.] ‘ Or was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?’ ‘If customs, otherwise so disgraceful, are to be maintained among you, one can only conclude that you are the primitive fountain of Church teaching and Church order, or the only depositary of it;’ the general term 6 Ad-yos Tod Ocod includ- ing alike thy GA@ciay Kal roy Kavdva mov éxkAnoiorixdy, Orig. There is some little doubt whether this verse is to be connected with ver. 35 (Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort), or with what follows (De W., Alf.). On the one hand it might be thought that the strong tone of the verse could hardly have been called out by the usage just specified: on the other hand, aratia of this kind had a far graver import than might appear on the surface (consider ch, xi. 7 sqq.), and, as we well know, expanded afterwards into very grave evils in the early Church, and might thus rightly be put in antithesis, as it were, with Church usage every- where else (comp. ch. xi. 16) as is in effect done in this verse: 7d alexpdy roo «mpdywatos tdeike, Tas Aomas 284 TPO KOPINOIOYS ITPOTH. ¥ > ADS , Ei tis Soxet mpodyrns evar H Ws i the Torts TVEVLATLKOS, ETLyWwCKETO & ypadw dp, OTL 38 Kupiov é€orly évrodn el b€ Tis ayvoel, ayvoetrar. oe 37- Kuplov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Jec., tov Kuplov. éotly evtroAn) So Lachm., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority as to éorly, and on clearly preponderating authority as to evroAq: Rec., cioly évroAal, with internal evidence also against it; Tisch., éoriv, only: but on clearly insufficient authority. 38. ayvoeira:]) So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), on exkAncias eis wéecoy Téecev, Chrys. We adopt, then, with some confidence the connexion with what precedes. So appy. Copt., Aith., and, as far as can be inferred, the remaining Vv. and the early expositors. eis bpas pdvovs] ‘wnto you,’ ‘im vos solos,’ Vulg., the idea of reaching to, and entering as it were into them, being thus more fully implied by the prep. eis (with persons) than if the less distinctive mpbs had been used; see Winer, Gr. § 49. a.a, and, on the distinction between eis and mpés, notes on Philem. 5. 37, 38. Concluding exhorta- tions. 37. Et tis Soxe? x.7.A.] ‘If any man thinketh himself to bea prophet ;’ not ‘ videtur,’ Vulg., ‘ ex- istimatur,’ Arm., Theoph., but ‘ pu- tat,’ Syr., Copt., Aith. (in effect), al.,—the context seeming clearly to show that the reference here is sub- jective, and points, not to what the tts may be in the eyes of others, but what he deems himself to be: see notes on ch. ili. 18. | Tvevp- atikés}] ‘or spiritual,’ scil. ‘one endowed with any spiritual gift,’ the context determining the shade of meaning to be ascribed in each case to the somewhat inclusive epi- thet. Hofmann objects to this sort of generic rendering of mvevuatixéds, as not in harmony with the com- mon use of the disjunctive 7, but see Kiihner, Gr. § 540. 1, where this use of the particle is clearly sub- stantiated ; see also Biumlein, Par- tik. p. 126. émiytvwokeTo & ypddbw x.7.A] ‘let him take know- ledge of the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s command- ment ;’ the compound émuywaéokey having its usual fuller meaning (see notes on ch. xiii. 12), though here somewhat diluted by the attracted form which the sentence has as- sumed, the meaning being in effect, ‘judicet atque agnoscat, ea, que scribo vobis, esse precepta Christi Domini,’ Est. On the very intelli- gible attraction, according to which the & ypapw suiv, which logically belongs to the objective or exposi- tory member of the sentence, is grammatically associated with the first member, see Winer, Gr. § 66. 5. a, and on the various uses of emiyivworeyv, Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p- 158 sq. The Kuplov, as its posi- tion indicates, is emphatic. The Apostle here speaks with the full spiritual knowledge that the rules given in this chapter are no mere expressions of his own judgment, but are verily a collective évroAy of the personal Lord, speaking as it were by His Apostle as His inter- - preter: comp. Hofm. im loc. 38. et 8€ tis dyvoei] ‘but if Py bs XIV. 37, 38, 39, 40. Desire prophesying, and observe order. 285 “Note, adekhoi pov, Lyrodre 7d 39 , \ ‘\ -~ ‘ UA , Tpodytevew, Kat TO adety py KwveTE yhoooats. mavra dé evoynpoves Kal kata Takw yweobo. 40 slightly preponderating authority: Rec., Treg. (with marg.), Rev. (with marg.), ayvoeirw,—a change due perhaps to not understanding the meaning of ayvoeira. 39. a&eApol pov] So [Lachm.] Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority : Rec. omits wou. Mh KwAdvETE yAdooas] So, in regard of order, Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. yAéooaus wh KkwaAdvere. 40. mdvra 5€} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. omits dé. anyone knows not,’ scil. what & ypcow vuiy really are. The idea of wilful ignorance is not necessarily involyed in this verb: it may be latent (‘mavult ignorare,’ Est.), but what is expressed is simply, ‘ ig- norat,’ Vulg., or, as corrected by Beza, ‘ignarus est’ (‘ignorans est,’ Copt.), is ignorant of the true character and authority of these commands, whether from indiffer- ence or otherwise. dyvocttar| ‘he is not known ;’ scil. ‘ vicissim ignorabitur [ignoratur] a Domino,’ Est.: he is one of those whom the Lord knows not (contrast John x. 14, 2 Tim. ii. 19), and to whom hereafter, if they persevere in their the dread otk olda yas (Matth. xxv. 12) will be pronounced, when the Lord comes. If the read- ing ayvoelrw be adopted, the meaning will be ‘ let him remain in his ignor- ance,’ the imperative being permis- sive (see ch. vii. 15, and notes in loc.), and the general sentiment, that all hope of further successful instruction must be renounced: see Winer, Gr. § 43. I. &yvo.a, Summary of the whole “Qoare] ‘ So then, introductory of the 39, 40. chapter. Consequently : concluding exhortations (‘ex diver- ticulo redit ad prius dicta,’ Grot.), and directing attention to the whole preceding counsels from which they naturally flow, and on which they are based; comp. ch. xi. 33, and on the meaning of this particle (‘itaque,’ Vulg.), notes on ver. 22. CnrottTe Td TWpodnTevetv x.7T.A.] ‘earnestly desire to prophesy, and hinder not the speaking “with tongues:’ comprehensively expressed summary of the exact tenor of the exhortation (in reference to these two spiritual gifts) as directly given, andas indirectly transpiring through- out the chapter. In all that was said in reference to 7d mpopntevey, from verse I onward, the tenor is (Aovre: equally also is it, uy No hindrance is offered to this latter gift; nay, when it is manifested, the speaker is bidden to pray for the power of making his utterances profitable to others (ver. 13); when confusion might ensue (ver. 27) directions are given to obviate it. 40. wdvra 8 x.7.A.] * But let all things be done, be carried on (ywéo8w, pres.), decently and in order ;’ summary on the practical side, introduced by the connective, KwAvETE, 286 XV. MPOS KOPINGIOYS TPOTH. Trwpilo dé byw, deh Goi, TO ebay- The Gospel which 1 preached, was, in ac- 5 cand with facts, yehuov 3 oO eimyyeuoduny vp, & Kal Christ's resurrection. 2 mapeddBere, vy Kal EotHKare, Ov ob kal adleabe, tin yet slightly antithetical, 5¢ (‘novum quid accedit,’ Herm.), of the real purpose which guided and animated all the foregoing directions ;—edifi- cation (compare ver. 5, 12, 26), of which the necessary basis was 7d ¢b- oxnuov (ch. vii. 35), and rats. evoxnpwdves] ‘decently, decorously ;’ see Rom. xiii. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12. The word involves the idea, not merely of contrast to érdxrws, but of decorous and seemly deportment. It is the sort of ethical enhancement of the more mechanical kara rdtw which follows: see notes on 1 Thess. l.c. The short but telling treatise of Hammond, Grounds of Uni- formity Vindicated (Lond. 1657), is founded on this text. VII. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD (ch. xv.). XV. 1-11. The historical fact of Christ’s resurrection the substance of the Apostle’s preaching. I. yvwptto S bpiv] ‘ Now I make known unto you ;’ the 5€ indicating the transition (notes on Gal. i. 11), and the yvwpi(w (‘notum facio,’ Syr., Vulg.; ‘manifesto,’ Arm. ; not ‘annuncio,’ Copt.,—still less avapip- vhoxw, Theod., comp. Chrys.), with some tinge of reproach, marking that the Apostle was forced, as it were, de novo to make known the tenor and import of the gospel (‘doctrinam de Christo salvatore hominum,’ Est.) which he had preached among them (ch. ii. 2), of which Jesus and the resurrection (Acts ii. 33, xvii. 18, al.) ever formed the primary doctrines (comp. ver. 3), and the true tenor and substance: comp. John xvii. 26, Rom. ix. 22. The formula is the prelude to the orderly and deliberate statement which follows; comp. 2 Cor. viii. I, and Gal. i. 11, where see notes im loc. 6 Kal trapeAdBere K.7.A.] ‘which also ye received, in which also ye stand ;’ each kal mark- ing climactically that which, on their side, was associated with, and re- sulted from, the preaching: eles m@s avtov’s Kade udptupas TOY ecipn- First, beside merely hearing with the outward ear, they received (Gal. i. 9, Phil. iv. 9, Col. ii. 6, 1 Thess. ii. 13); then, further, they so received that they attained in it a firm standing-ground (Rom. v. 2; comp. xi. 20, 2 Cor. i. 24), and further still, by means of it, were on the pathway of salvation. On the ascensive kai, of which this passage forms a good illustration, see notes on Phil. iv. 12. This and the three following verses form the text of the fourteenth of the Cate- chetical Lectwres of Cyril of Jeru- salem, p. 165 sq. (Oxf. 1845). 2. 8? ob Kal odLeabe] ‘by which also ye are being saved,’ are placed among the ocw(duevor (ch. i. 18),— not merely as éeAmiCovtes am’ avTov cwrnplas tuxeiv, Theodorus), but as actually in the way that leads to salvation, and placed there by the gospel-call, salvation having begun when Christ was believed in; comp. Rom. viii. 24, Eph. ii. 8: ‘salus Christianorum incipit in hae vita, perficitur in futuro,’ Est. The very meaning, however, of the verb in- volves a reference to the future, so that we may rightly say that past, present, and future are each re- spectively referred to in the zape- pevev, Chrys. Dav Agra $3, 287 Aoyw einyyeiodpny vty ei Katéyere, exTds et 1) eiky emiaTtevoate. Tapeédwxa yap tuly ev TpeTois, d 3 AdBere, éorhkare, and oa eade, of this and the two foregoing clauses. tlvt Adyo ednyyeAtodpny tpiv] ‘if you hold fast, with what word I preached it unto you:’ scil. with what form of words, and substance of teaching,—not ‘qui ratione,’ Vulg., but ‘quonam sermone,’ Syr. (comp. Ath. ‘ quidnam dixi vobis’), the rapé5wxa of the next verse clearly pointing more to the what than the how of the teaching. The connexion of this clause is by no means easy to decide upon. We may connect it (a) immediately with the foregoing clause 5:’ 08 kal od(eobe, and regard it as specifying the condition under which the hopeful words are spoken; or (4) it may be joined, by a very common principle of attraction (comp. Winer, Gr. § 66, 4), to the Td evayy. d einyy. tuiv, the relatival clauses being regarded as in effect in a parenthesis: so appy. Lachm., Westc. and Hort, and clearly Rev. This latter construction is at first sight plausible, but the logical ob- jection seems fatal, viz. that the condition ei karéxere cannot be very intelligibly associated with the yoepi(w duiv «.7.A., which is simply a statement of what the Apostle'then was doing, wholly independent of any spiritual attitude on the part of the Corinthians. We _ therefore adopt (a), and regard the inversion of the two members of the con- ditional clause as due to the desire to keep in prominence the tiv Adyw «.7,A., on which the emphasis ob- viously rests, the ti taking the place of the relative to enhance this emphasis: see Winer, Gr. § 25. 1. note, Buttm. N. T. Gram. p. 216. It was on holding firmly the sub- stance of the Apostle’s teaching that progress in salvation depended. For exx. of somewhat similar inversions, see Winer, Gr. § 61. 3. extds el ph K.T.A.] ‘except it be that you believed in vain;’ an assumption not contemplated as likely to have been verified, but still specified by way of gently implied warning: comp. Chrys. in loc., who, however, emphasizes the warning more than the context seems to re- quire ; so too Severian (Cram. Cat.). The clause is thus dependent, not on the preceding «i xaréxere (Theoph., Cicum., al.), as one conditional clause would then have another de- pendent on it—a manifest awkward- ness—but on the whole preceding portion of the verse, to which it . forms a sort of cautionary conclu- sion. On the pleonastic éxrds «i uh, see notes on ch. xiv. 5, and on the reference of the aor. émoretcare to the period when the Gospel was first received by them, notes on ch. iii. 5 ; comp. Rom. xiii. 11. The adverb eix7 (on the orthography, see Winer, Gr. § 5.4.c) does not refer to the objective nullity (Alf.) of the faith professed (comp. ver. I1), as this conception has not yet been hinted at, but to the fruitless manner (0d feBalws, Orig.) in which it had been em- braced: comp. Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11, and, on the possible derivation of the word, notes on Col. ii. 18. There seems no sufficient reason for press- ing here the more usual classical meaning ‘sine justé causA,’ ‘temere’ (comp. Rom, xiii. 11, and perhaps Col. ii. 18): the meaning ‘ frustra’ (Hesych. udrnv) is here rightly maintained by Vulg., Syr., ®th., Arm.; so Grimm, Lez. s. v., and nearly all modern interpreters. 3. wapéSwxa ydp.x«.7.A.] ‘ For I ~ 288 IPOS KOPINGIOYS MPOTH. \ y eRe Ds ey CaN A. € Kat TapedaBov, oT: Xproros arélavev vrep TOV apap- lal c a A A , Ag, St 4 a ME: 4 TLOV HOV KaTAa Tas ypadas, Kal OTL eTady,*kal OTL 5 eyyyeptar ty nmepe TH Tpitn Kara Tas ypadds, Kal OTe 4. TH huépa TH Tplrn) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., 7H tpitn juépa. delivered unto you first of all: ex- planatory comment on the tiv Ady k.T.A., the yap having here the mixed explanatory and argumentative force which is often to be recognized in this particle ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 544. I, and notes on Gal. iv. 2. Hof- mann regards the particle as giving the reason for the Apostle’s speak- ing with the reservation specified in the preceding verse: the reasoning, however, does not thus seem per- spicuous ; whereas an explanation of the language just used, and of the contents of the preaching, is clear and natural. primis,’ Vulg., Goth.) does not here refer to time (€é apxjjs, ov viv, Chrys.), but, as the context clearly implies, to importance; as wéya ov Td wep) Tijs The év mpwrois (‘in- dvactdcews Sdyya, ev mpwTois avTd 6 Kal amaptdaBov] ‘which Ialso received ;’ the correlative and ascensive kal marking that the Apostle had, like themselves, received the great truth. yl os he had received it is not stated. The Apostle might have received it by direct revelation mapedwxa, Theoph. (comp. Gal. i. 12), and from Christ’ Himself (eis tov Xpiordby ayvayet, Chrys., Cyril, al.), but, in the ab- sence of any definitive expression (contrast ch. xi. 33), and, in con-’ nexion with the historical details which follow, seems here mainly to have in his thoughts the historical communication of the ever-blessed truth. ér. Xprords arreé- Bavev «.7.A.] ‘ that Christ died for our sins:’ substance of the 6 kat mapéAaBov, introduced by the exposi- tory 671; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq. On the important dogmatical expression bmtp Tay auapri@y (‘pro peccatis nostris abolendis,’ Beng., tva eéAn Tod Kéopov Thy auapriav, Cyril; comp. Heb. v. 1, x. 12), comp. notes on Gal. i. 4 (where the closely allied zep) is used), and on the prob- able meaning of trép juay in pas- sages of this nature, notes on Gal. iii. 13. The remark of Meyer is right and true, that the idea of the ‘satisfactio vicaria’ lies not in the mere preposition, but in the thing itself, and in the whole statement : consider Rom. vy. 6, Eph. v. 2, al. Kata tds ypddas] ‘according to the Scriptures;’ studiously appended, to mark that the events of the blessed history were long before foretold in prophecies which could not but have their sure accomplish- ment: comp. I Pet. i. 10 sq., and for similar statements as to the close relation of the prophecy with the history, Luke xxii. 37, xxiv. 25 sqq., John xx. 9, Acts Vili. 32 sqq., XVii. 3, xxvi. 22 sqq. For illustrations of the statement see Barrow (On the Creed), Serm. xxvu. Vol. v. p. 391 sqq. (Oxf. 1830). 4. Kal OTe éytjyepTar k.7T.A.] ‘And that he has been raised on the third day ;’ the perfect being studiously adopted, here and elsewhere in this chapter, to mark the continuance of - the blessed event (contrast Matt. xxvili. 6, 7, Mark xvi. 6, Luke xxiy. ‘ a, a a 289 &hOn Knyod, ira tots Sddexa* ereita ahOn erdvw 6 6, 34, al.) in its effects and conse- quences. The tense indicates ‘ ac- tionem plane preteritam, que aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est, ‘aut per effectus suos durat,’ Poppo, Progr. de emend. Matth. Gr. p. 6: comp. 2 Tim. ii. 8, and, in regard of the general meaning of the tense, notes on ch. xiii. 11. The tH juépa 7h tpltn seems also used to specify with exactness and emphasis the time, and its coincidence with the foreshadowings of prophecy (comp. Matt. xii. 40), and our Lord’s own declarations ; see Mdrk x. 34, Luke xviii. 33, John ii. 19, 21. Kata Tas ypadas thus belongs, as indeed the repetition of the ér: also clearly indicates, only to this second clause; comp. Chrys. im loc. The burial was an incident of great evidential importance, but it did not need the prophetic corroboration (Psalm xvi. 10; comp. Acts ii. 24, xiii. 34) which the simple mention of the great cardinal truth (ér: eyiryepta) seemed at once, almost spontaneously, to call forth ; comp. Luke xxiy. 46, John xx. 9: ‘ urgen- dum est pondus de resurrectione,’ Beng. _ 5+ Sr. S60n Knoa) ‘ that He ap- peared to Cephas:’ see Luke xxiv. 34. The Apostle specifies this ap- pearance rather than the earlier ones of which he no doubt was fully informed, as he desired to adduce authority which no one could justly call in question, viz. first that of St Peter (one of the oriAon, Gal. ii. 9, and even more, Matt. xvi. 17) who, of men, appy. first beheld the risen Lord (af:dxpewy els waptuplay, Theod.); and next, that of the whole Apostolic company. elta tots Sd8exa} ‘then to the twelve.’ As we know, it was really at first only to ten of the whole number (John xx. 19, 24; comp. Luke xxiv. 36), and, a week afterwards, to eleven (John xx. 26): but the term had already become official, and re- ferred to the collective body rather than to the precise number of which the body, at the time referred to, actu- ally consisted. Tosuppose that the term implies that our Lord appeared also to St Matthew (Chrys., al.), is clearly to over-press a very natural form of expression. Most expositors rightly call attention to the repeti- tion of the temporal adverbs, and to the tcxarov mdytwy (ver. 8), as im- plying that the Apostle is here generally following a chronological order: see contra Wieseler, Ciron. Synops. p. 420 sq., who does not appear to have assigned to this passage the importance, considered chronologically, that is due to it. 6. Emettra Shhn «.7.A.] ‘after that He appeared to above five hun- dred brethren at once:’ change of structure, introduced by the slightly more accentuated émeita [én elra, Hartung, Part. Vol. 1. p. 302] and carrying on the narrative without necessarily implying that the facts mentioned had been specified to the Corinthians, but certainly without implying anything to the contrary. Whenever the Apostle preached to his converts such a doctrine as the resurrection of our Lord, common sense says that he would have laid before them all the evidence. On the use of terra (‘deinde,’ Vulg. ; ‘alsdann,’ Ewald), which denotes the speedy following upon what had been stated of the event specified, see Biiumlein, Partik. p. 113, and notes on I Thess. iv. 17. On the U 290 IIPOS KOPINOIOYS ITWPOTH. mevtakociow aded\pois epama€, e€ dv ot mheloves 7 pévovoew ews apt, Twes S€ exomyOnoav* Eereta 8 bby ’Iaxd By, cita tots doordhos Tagw" Eoxa- 6. mreloves] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., rAetous. ties 5€) So Lachm., Tisch., Teg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority; Rec. adds kal. structure of érdyw (‘plus quam,’ Vulg.: certainly not uw Kal imep kepadjjs, Chrys.) with cardinal num- bers, and the suspension of its usual genitival government, the particle being purely adverbial, see Winer, Gr. § 37. 5, and on the later form épdrat (not here ‘ once for all,’ Rom. vi. 10, Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10, but, as the sense obviously requires, ‘simul,’ Vulg., Clar., Copt.; ‘una,’ Syr.: ‘suns,’ Goth.), and the connexion of adverb and preposition, Winer, Gr. § 50. 7. rem. 1, Kiihner, Gr. § 446. The occasion here re- ferred to cannot positively be identi- fied with that mentioned in Matth. xxviii. 16, as those who went to the appointed place are specified as of évdexa, but, from a consideration of all the circumstances, such an iden- tification may at least be deemed highly probable; see Life of our Lord, Lect. v1. p. 410. pévovaiv €ws ape] ‘ remain until mow,’ here on earth: comp. Phil. i. 25, John xxi. 22, The Apostle is careful to mention this to show the amount of testimony he had to rely on, and, how easily it could be veri- fied: Stvardyv, pynot, Tov BovAduevoy map al’tay exelywy TovTo pabeiv, Theod. wives 8 éxoupr- Oncav] ‘ but some are fallenasleep ;’ appended and subordinated state- ment, to cover the probable circum- stance that now, twenty-seven years afterwards, some would be no longer alive; the 5€ contrasting the twés with the of mActoves, the compara- tively few that can now bear no testimony on this earth, with the larger portion that can still be appealed to. The kad is rightly omitted : if it were genuine it would just idiomatically accentuate the exounonoay, and have what may be called its descensive force: see notes on Phil. iv. 12. On the term komac0a in its reference to death, and the utterly precarious nature of . the doctrinal deductions that have sometimes been drawn from it, see notes and reff. on 1 Thess. iv. 13. 7. 560n laxéBo] ‘ He appeared to James ;’ an appearance not men- tioned in the Gospel narrative. The James here mentioned is re- garded by the early expositors, and apparently rightly, as James, the brother of our Lord; see Gal. i. 19, and notes in loc. Without entering further into the controverted question whether this Jacobus Frater was an Apostle in the full meaning of the word, and so to be identified with Jacobus Alphai (see notes on ch. ix. 5), it seems certainly exegetically reasonable to say that the addition of the word 7aow does seem to sug- gest that St James was one of the number: see Hofmann in loc. It may certainly be said that as the of 5é5exa have been mentioned already, the assumption is not un- reasonable that the of éméaroAo: here mentioned may include the wider circle of the disciples: so Theod., XV. 7, 8. 291 Tov O€ TaVTwY woTEpEl TO EKTPOmaTL OPOn Kapot. Chrys.,al. It may be replied, how- ever, that, in a passage of this kind, where the language is marked by a kind of documentary precision (comp. ver. 8), it is highly improb- able that the word should be used in any but its usual and more restricted sense. Why may not this appearance —to St James have taken place shortly before some appearance to the apo- stolic company of which we have no specific notice ? Consider Acts i. 3, 4. Jerome refers to an appearance vouchsafed to James the Just, as mentioned in the ancient Gospel * quod appellatur secundum Hebreos’ (de Vir. Illustr. cap. 2), which may have rested on some early tradition, or may have been based on this passage : compare Hofmann, Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen, § 89, p. 393- elta Toig GtrooTéAots maouv] ‘then to all the Apostles ;’ not with any particular emphasis, ‘to the Apostles, every one of them,’ the semi-pronominal was here simply occupying one of its two normal positions (rots am. waow, or maow tois am.) when the whole is specified as such, and assuming the form of an additive definition. If the order had been tots raow aroorddAos (not, however, a very usual order in the N. T.; see notes on Gal. v. 14), then the whole body would have been regarded as in latent distinction to its parts : see esp. Kiihner, Gr. § 465. 6. b,c, and comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 11. 7, 12, Winer, Gr. § 61. 2. b. 8. Ecxatov 8% mdavtrwv) ‘and last of all;’ comp. Mark xii. 22 (according to the best text), where the same combination occurs. In both passages it may be considered doubtful whether +dvtwy is masc. or neuter. If the former, then the reference is to the aréarodo (Mey.), or to all those mentioned, ‘all of them,’ Syr., Copt., Aith.: if the latter, then &ryarov mdvrwy must be regarded as an adverbial expression like mdvrwy wddtora, al. On the whole, as the context relates entirely to persons, the masculine reference is to be preferred, and in its wider application,—all of those referred to (rdvtwy avOpémrwv, Theod.), whether amdécroAko or no; ‘ universi eorum, quibus visus est,’ Est. For exx. of the adverbial use of ayaroyv, and its connexion with a gen. (Deut. xxxi. 27, 29), see Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 2113 (ed. Hase). Gotepel TO Extpdpartr] ‘as unto the untimely-born one,’ ‘tanquam abortivo,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., ‘suasve ausvarpa [abjectioni],’ Goth.: the strong expression being used to denote the Apostle’s suddenly and abnormally effected conversion as contrasted with the peaceful call and ripening apostolate of those with whom he proceeds to contrast him- self. The article adds still further enhancement, ‘the one who, con- trasted with the rest, was pre-em- inently an é€xtpwua. The word ext pwua (€xtitpdoKw) is a later form, synonymous with the more classical auBAwua (Lobeck, Phryn. p. 209), denoting the ‘ untimely fruit’ of the womb, auPawOpldiov EuBpvov, Theod., used appy. first in Aristotle (Gen. Anim. IV. 5, Kuhuar’ exmlnres Tapa- TART ToIs KaAoumevors exTpauacw), and subsequently in later writers: see LXX Numb. xii. 12, Job. iii. 16, Zecles. vi. 3, the exx. in Wetst. in loc., and the discussion of the word in Fritzsche, Dissert. 1. p. 60 sq. ; comp. also, Suicer, Thesaur. s. vy. Vol. 1. p. 1073 sq. The strong ex.- v2 292 IIPOS KOPIN@EIOY> HPOTH. 9 ‘Eye yap clue 6 EAGXLOTOS TOV atroaTOwY, ds OK eipl ixavds Kader bau ddarohos, d.dT1 eBluta Thy 10 éxk\notay ToD Ocod* xapite dé Ocod cips 6 cipu, Kal 4 Xapis avTod 7 Els Ewe od Kev EeyevyOn, adda mEepisaoTEpov avTGv TAVTWV EKxOTriaca, OvK eya Oe pression is studiously softened by the domepel, a form only occurring here in the N. T. but used in classi- cal Greek from Aischylus onward. S0n Kapot] ‘He appeared to me also.’ The Apostle uses the same form of expression, in reference to the appearance of the ascended Lord, as previously used in reference to the appearances prior to the Ascension. Christ thus vouchsafed to show Himself, even as He had been seen at, and prior to, that time,—‘ corporaliter, atque oculis corporeis videndum,’ Estius: con- sider Article 1. 9g. “Ey® yap «.t A.) ‘ For I am the least of the Apostles :’ confirma- tion of the strong expression used in the preceding verse, the é¢yw having its full emphasis, ‘I, this &xrpwyua.’ Chrysostom appears here to take amrooréAwy in its wider sense, tay This does not seem required by the context: it seems more probable that in such a pass- age as this the word would be used in its proper sense; comp. notes on ver. 7. bs odk eclpl K.7.A.] ‘who am not meet to be called,’ almost ‘seeing I am not &c.,’ the és having here a semi-argumenta- tive force, explaining and, in effect, confirming the foregoing clause. On this use of the relative, which is by no means uncommon (see ch. i. 30, iv. 17), and almost speaks for itself, see notes on Col. i. 18, and on 1 Tim. ii. 4. The term ixayds ig here used in its partially derivative sense of ‘aptus,’ ‘idoneus’ (scil. BAAwv ardyTwv. ‘ sufficiens viribus ;’ 2 Cor. ii. 16, iii. 5), the transition from which to the more distinctly derivative idea of ‘dignus’ (Vulg., and all the other Vv.; comp. Matth. iii. 11, viii. 8, Mark i. 7, Luke iii. 16, vii. 6) is obvious and intelligi- ble. The idea here, however, seems more that of ‘meetness’ and of ‘moral fitness.’ The Apostle regards his early life as disqualifying him, had it not been for God’s mercy, for bearing so high a title. S.6Te €S(wéa k-7.A. ] ‘ because I persecuted the Church of God ;’ reason why he so speaks of himself, the d:idri (8. rovro ér:), having its usual causal force (‘ quoniam,’ Vulg.; ‘ propterea quod,’ Beza), and differing very slightly from 671; see notes on Gal. ii. 16. On this and the following verse, and on the conversion of the Apostle viewed in relation to his office, see Newman, Paroch. Serm. Vol. 11. p. 106 sqq. 10. xdpuite S€ Ocod x.7.A.] ‘but by the grace of God I am what I am;’ contrasted sentence recount- ing how God’s grace made him to be what he now was, scil. ‘apostolus, qui Christum vidi,’ Beng.: eAatrapyata éavtT@ AoyiCerat Th me Ta 5 KaTopléuara xapitt ToD Ocod avari- 6no1, Theoph. od Keviy éyev On] ‘did not prove vain,’ 7.e. without effect, and adequate results: so eis xevév, Phil. ii. 16, 1 Thess. iii. 5. The word éyevf0n is passive only in form ; hence, ‘ was not found,’ Rey., would appear to be stronger than usage fully justifies: see notes on ch, viii. 6. &AAG Treptocd-~ Pe a ; Ps y mY: G, 3 Th, 293 ye , lal lal ‘ > , ¥ s a ¥ GANA 7 Xa pis TOD Ocod ody Epol. Elite ov Eye ElTe II €xEWoL, OUTWS KNPVT TOME Kal OUTWS eTLOTEVaATE. 10. ody euol} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., 4 obv éuol. repov x.7.A.] ‘but I laboured more abundantly than they all;’ con- trasted statement (4A) to the pre- ceding negative clause, the mepiood- tepoy being the accus. of the defining or quantitative object, appended to the intransitive éxorlaca, and speci- fying the amount of the 7d xomdév: comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 3. rem. 5. There is some little doubt whether abtay mdytwy is to be taken with a collective (‘all of them’), or an in- dividualizing (‘every one of them’) force. No inference can safely be drawn from the order of the words, the position of wdvrwy being the prevailing one in pronominal ex- pressions of this nature (comp. Winer, Gr. § 61. 2. b), but it may perhaps be inferred from the prob- able meaning of tots amoardAos maow (ver. 7: see notes) that no particular emphasis is intended to to be placed on the wdyrwy, and so, that the ordinary collective meaning is to be preferred. On the use of komay in reference to ministerial labour (Rom. xvi. 12, Gal. iv. 11, Phil. ii. 16, al.), with allusion to the accompanying toil and suffering, see notes on 1 Tim, iv. 10. otk éya 8% x,7-A.] ‘yet not I, but the grace of God with me:’ qualifica- tion of the wepioodrepoy x.7.A., and reference of the spiritual energy he had been permitted to put forth to the true source of it all: xal 7d Komiamat 5& abtd Tis TOU Ocov xdpiTos éotiv, Theoph. The antithesis ov« —4éara is not to be diluted or ex- plained away (see Winer, Gr. § 55. 8): the Apostle with his character- istic humility, especially with edfwta Thy ekkAnolavy almost still on his lips, ascribes all his xémos to the grace of God that thus exorlacey with him, and made him more fruitful in spiritual labours than all the rest. Had not the grace of God laboured with him there would have been no result. If the article (Rec.) had formed a part of the text, the statement would have been still stronger, ‘not I, but the grace of God which was with me did the blessed work ;’ ‘gratiam Dei omnium effectricem testatur,’ Calvy. That Estius should labour to explain away such a statement (‘non ego principaliter; aut non tam ego, quam gratia Dei’) is by no means unnatural. The true reading, how- ever, involves no difficulties. II. etre otv éyo «.7.A.] *‘ Whether then it were I or they ;’ odv having here its reswmptive force (see notes on Gal. iii. §, and on Phil. iii. 1), and referring back to ver. 8. The main idea of the verse, however, viz. the testifying what they had been permitted to see (aftws Kknpiccouer), really flows from the allusions to ministerial labours in the two digres- sive yerses,—‘ whether it were I or they (to whom the manifestations were vouchsafed, and who, asI have just said, respectively laboured as I have stated), so we preach &e.’ The éxeivot must obviously be those to whom the verses immediately preceding more particularly refer,— ‘alii Apostoli, quibus Christus post resurrectionem visus est,’ Estius. ottws Knptcconeyv «.7.A.] ‘ So we 294 IPOS KOPINOIOYS WPOTH. 9 : ; 12 Ei 8€ Xpiords xnpvocerar ote Ex Ue Christ didnot rise, we are false teachers, and your hope is lal lal > Lal VEKPQV eyryyEpTat, TOS héeyovow ev ty Or | lal »” 4 3 TwWes OTL avaoTATLS VEeKpOV OvK EoTW; Ei OE aVd- 12. év tiv tivés} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on distinctly preponderating authority : Rec., ties ev bpiv. preach, and so ye believed,—when the Gospel was first preached to you;’ comp. ver. 2. The first o#tws refers to the fundamental truths delivered (ver. 3) and, as the tenor of the whole passage shows, more especially to 67s eyfryeprat K.T.A. (ver. 4) ; the second to the substance of the kfpuyya they had received : oun elme micreveTe, GAN emioTEvoaTe. émeid}) EoadrevoyvTo, 5: TovTO em) Tovs tyw xpdvous avédpame, Kal thy map avtav éxelvwy Aourdy paptuplay mpoo- Ti8now, Chrys.: comp. Hofmann in loc. The éemoretvoare is used, as in ver. 2 (see notes), with reference to the time when the Gospel was first preached among them. 12-19. Christ’s resurrection is that on which the resurrection of the dead wholly depends. EL 5 Xprords x.7.A.] ‘ Now if Christ as preached that He hath been raised from the dead :’ transition, by means of the 8% weraBatixdy (notes on Gal. i. 11), to the actual controversy, the - particle, however, still retaining its proper oppositive force in the con- trast it marks between the truth preached and the false views that were entertained. The order of the words, and the attraction of the substantive from the dependent, to the principal, clause (see Winer, Gr. § 66. 5), arise from the desire to place Xpiorbs in distinct prominence: Christ’s resurrection forms the nerve of the argument. On the éyfyeprau, See notes on ver. 3.° TOS A€yovoiy év upiv tives] ‘how is it that some say among yors,’—not only think, but give expression to their thoughts; the mas (‘qui fit ut;’ comp. Gal. ii. 14, iii. 6, al.) marking the sort of surprise in the Apostle’s mind that it was possible for any of them, among whom Christ’s resur- rection had been preached, to affirm what inferentially denied it. Chry- sostom rightly calls attention to the use of the twes as marking an un- willingness on the part of the Apostle to specify : some there were, probably not many, but the error of these men, whether few or many, was so deadly that it called for immediate refutation. On this use of twés, as implying that the Apostle did not deem specification neces- sary, whether from the fewness of the Aéyovres, or from any other reason, comp. Herm. Viger, No. 114. The év tuiv, even in the present order, may be joined with tives (Syr., Goth., Cyril), but is much more naturally connected with the verb (Vulg.), the ries standing out in its isolation ; so Chrys., though adopt- ing the order tivés éy piv. Who these teachers were, and what exactly was the tenor of their teach- ing, has been very differently esti- mated. That they were originally heathens, and men of a so-called philosophic tone of mind (comp. ch. i. 20), seems highly probable (consider Acts xvii. 18); and that they denied, not necessarily the existence of the soul after death (comp. Cyril ap. Cram. Cat.), but what they would have described as RNS RSs AG u tas 295 OTacis vexpav ovK eotiv, ovde Xpiotods EyyyepTac. 14 the materialistic conceptions in volved in the teaching of the resur- rection of the body. The avdoracis which they denied was an dvdoraots vexp@y (comp. Acts xvii. 32), an évderacis such as was preached at Corinth and in the universal Chris- tian Church. That. teaching was never favourable to a mere bodiless immortality : see Dorner, Chr. Doc- trine, § 153, ut. Vol. Iv. p. 407. ovk ~otwy] ‘is not,’ scil. ‘has no existence’; ‘nist,’ Goth., sim. Vulg., Copt. In translation it is difficult to maintain this emphatic position of the negative predication, but in the original it is clearly marked and intentional; compare Eph. vi. 9, Rpotwrodnuvla ovk Ect map auT@. 13. el 8€ dvdoracts x.7.A.] ‘ But af there is no resurrection of the dead,’ or, more exactly, ‘if a resur- rection of the dead has no exist- ence,’—the partly continuative, and also partly antithetical, 5¢ (compare notes on ch. xi. 20) commencing the argument against the assertion of the twés, and reiterating their words : ‘ argumentatur a negato con- sequente ad negationem anteceden- tis,’ Estius. On the perfectly natural and indeed proper use of ov« in this clause, od« €otw forming as it were a single verb, see Winer, Gr. § 55. 2. b, but see also notes on ch. vii, 9. ovS€ Xptotrds eytyeprar] * Christ also hath not been raised,’ or, for the sake of keeping the ovde in its position of emphasis, ‘ neither hath Christ been raised,’ Rey., ‘ nih Christus urrdis,’ Goth. The reason- ing is here somewhat differently estimated. The Greek expositors (not, however,* Theod.) appear to regard the argument as resting on ¢he fact that Christ was raised for el S¢ Xpia ros ovdK eyyyeptat, Kevdov apa TO KHpvypa the good of the race, and was (ver. 20) the dmapxh: if there was no resurrection of the dead, His resur- rection would have had no place or purpose; tlvos yap Evexey avéorn, ei ph Euevey Hyuiv amrapxh elvat. Theoph. This is plausible, but what is really thus proved is, not the fact that Christ did not rise (the simple matter with which we are here concerned), but that, if He did, His rising was of no avail,—an as- pect of the question not now before us. We adopt, then, the view of Theodoret, that the argument turns on the verity of Christ’s manhood: capa yap kal 6 deondrns elxe Xpiotds. Theod. If there is no such thing as a bodily resurrection, then there can be no such thing as a raising of Christ’s body as preached every- where, and in every Church; con- sider Acts ii. 31, 32. This and the preceding verse form the sort of text for a portion of the article on the Resurrection in Jackson On the Creed, Vol. x. p. 235 sqq. (Oxf. 1844). 14. el 8 Xputotdg ovK éy7j- yeprat] ‘But if Christ hath not been raised,’ —the 5é, as in the pre- ceding verse, carrying forward the reasoning, under the same partly continuative, partly antithetical sequence, and the ov«, as before, being closely united with the verb, scil. ‘ if there has been no raising of Christ;’ ‘sublato articulo resur- rectionis Christi, tota spes, quam in Christo habemus, concidit,’ Estius. Kevov dpa To KipvyLa hpdv) ‘empty, certainly, is our preaching ;’ the kevdy being placed in a distinct position of emphasis, and the &pa, with here its ‘levior quedam ratiocinatio ’ 296 TIPOS KOPINCIOYS TPOTH. Cae! 4 Ne ie ee, ALE) le , 4 ry 15 )eav, Key Kal 4 TioTis tuav’ evpicKdpeba dé Kat Wevdoudprupes Tov Ocov, oT. Euaptupyoapev Kara TOV Oeovd ot. Hyepev Tov Xprorov, dv ovK Hyeipev 14. Kevyn wal] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating evidence: Rec., Kevyn 5€ Kai. In the former clause the insertion of kal after pa has distinctly good support ([Lachm.], Tisch.), but is probably the result of an assimilative correction. In regard also of the last word of the verse the reading is slightly doubtful; Westc. and Hort read jjuév on good, but, as it would seem, insufficient authority. Assimilation to the preceding pronoun is not unlikely. (Klotz, Devarius, Vol. 11. p. 160), adding a confirmatory force to the clause, and implying that what is asserted is beyond all reasonable doubt: see Kiihner, Gr. § 549. 2, 3, and the careful investigation of Biumlein, Gr. Partik. p. 21 sq.: see also notes on Gal. v.11. Thie khpvyyz in the assumed case would be kevdy; it would contain no sub- stantive, no objective, truth, nothing to which the preacher could appeal as a ‘vera res’ (Beng.), and an ad- mitted fact: with the resurrection all other great Christian realities, atonement, redemption, forgiveness, would disappear; é&mavra otxera, Chrys. Kev?) Kal TlotTLs tpdv] ‘empty also is your faith ;’ if the khpvypa is Kevdy (‘ inanis,’ Vulg.), then that which is evoked by it, through hearing (Rom. x. 14), —faith in the Lord Jesus Christ— is empty and unreal also: odx jets de udvoy Keva exnpvéauev, GAA kal bucis Keva emiotevoate, Chrys. 15. evptoképeOa SS x.7.A.] ‘and (further) we are found,’— ‘shown by the circumstances or issue to be &c.;’ the 5€ having its copulative or rather adjunctive force, and introducing a fresh moment of thought (Kiihner, Gr. § 532. 1),— viz. that it was not only a kevdy Kipuypa but a wWevdouaprupia,—and the eipioxdueba preserving its usual and proper distinction from elvai, with which, neither here nor else- where in the N. T. (Matth. i. 18, Luke xvii. 18, al.), it is in any degree synonymous: see Winer, Gr. § 65. 8, and notes on Gal. dire Kal wevSoudprTupes tod Ocod] ‘also false witnesses of God ;’ the ascensive kat slightly emphasizing the word it precedes, and bringing out the whole serious aspects of the assertion (ver. 12) with which the Apostle is now deal- ing. It is somewhat doubtful whether the rod cod is a gen. sub- jecti (‘false witnesses in God’s service ’) or objecti (‘false witnesses concerning God’): either gives good sense; the latter, however, seems most in harmony with the context. So appy. Copt., Cyril (Cram. Cat.), Beng. (‘de Deo’), al., and Winer, Gry S30) tea: €WapTupicawev KaTa Tod Ocod] ‘we bore witness (when we preached the resurrection) concerning God :’ not ‘adyversus Deum,’ Vulg., the common usage (ch. iv. 6, Matth. x. 35, XXvi. 59, 62, Acts vi. 13, Rom. Vili. 53, al.), but ‘de Deo,’ Erasm., and appy. Syr., Copt., Arm.,—tthe idea of a hostile intention not\ap- parently lying in the erie In such a case we should have expected Wevdoudptrupes kara Tod @cod in the preceding clause, as it is actually AV. E55 FO; P75. 1S. 297 ¥” » ‘ > > , > ‘ ‘ > eimep apa vexpol ovK eyetpovTar. el yap vexpol ovK 16 lhe 29\ Sa a TRI ‘ éyelpovtar, ovdé Xpiortos eyyyeptar’ ei S€ Xpiotds 17 ovK eynyepTal, pataia H TlaTis Dua@v"* ETL EaTe ev Tats apapTiaw vor. cited in Cyril. We retain, there- fore, under the influence of the con- text, the neutral rendering, even though no similar instance occurs in the N. T: comp., however, Plato, Phedr. p. 279, mavrevouat kat’ abrov, and Kiihner, Gr. § 433. u. 3. The preachers (on the assumption run- ning through the passage) might have been wevdoudprupes through mispersuasion, without any designed misrepresentation. elarep Gpak.t.Ad.] ‘if so be that the dead verily are not raised ;’ the efrep (‘ si omnino,’ Klotz, Devarius, Vol. m. p- 528) adding force and amplitude to the condition (comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 510. 5), and the &pa, as above, ver. 14 (see notes), giving a further con- firmatory emphasis and enhance- ment; ‘si videlicet mortui non excitantur,’ Beza. On the distine- tion between c«lwep and ctye, see notes on Gal. vii. 4, and comp. Herm. Viger, No. 310. It will be observed that here, and throughout the passage, vexpol is anarthrous. The dead are not regarded as a class (comp. ver. 52, 2 Cor. i. 9, Col. i. 18), but as individuals in the state described,—‘dead persons,’ ‘dead men.’ This, however, can hardly be expressed in an ordinary English translation. 16. el yap vexpol «.7.A.] Con- firmation of the ty ov fyeiper just preceding by a practical repetition of the statement in verse 13. This verse and the following, and ver. 20, form the general text to chap. xvi. (Book x1.) in Jackson On the Creed, Vol. x. p. 305 sqq. (Oxf. 1844). »” \ c ¢ > apa Kal ou Kouunfevtes ev 18 17. el 8 Xptotrds x-7.A.] Con- sequences of the ov Xpiords eyh- yeptat again set forth, as in ver. 14 but, in the present case, with fuller statement of the personal conse- quences to the Corinthians and to believers generally. If no resur- rection of Christ, then a faith, not only without any real substance whereon to rest, but without any fruit or moral results whatever; comp. Hofmann in loc. patata mlotig tydv] ‘vain (fruitless) is your faith ;’ the pre- dicate, as in ver. 14, standing promi- nently forward, and specifying the absence of all saving issues: it was no ‘ fides salvifica.’ On the meaning of wéraios, and its distinction from kevds, see notes on Tit. iii. 9. ért ore ev «.7.A.] ‘ye are yet in your sins,’—in the sphere of them, and encompassed by them: illus- tration of the pataidrns of their faith, on the assumption of the first clause. If Christ never rose again, the redemptive work of Christ was a nullity; there was not, and could not be, any dicalwois (Rom. iv. 25): ei yap kal aitds Katecxebn bd Tov Oavdrov, kal ovk EAvoev adrov Tas adivas, mas mavtas ToVs uAAOUS arHA- Aakey ert ards Katexduevos ; Chrys. There is a little difference between the present expression and i?’ Gpaptlay elvat, Rom. iii. 9. 18. dpa xal «.7r.A.] ‘Then (in that case) they also that were laid to sleep in Christ :’ a further con- sequence (&pa,—see notes on Gal. v. 11), emerging through the last clause (7: éoré x.7.A.) from the 298 TIPOS KOPIN@SIOYS TIPOTH. 19 Xpior@ amaddovto. et ev TH Cwh tTavtTyn ev X 3 9 AploT¢ ° DQ S@7 a plore 19. ev XpiorG@ HAmidres Couey] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., jAmuxdres éopev ey XpisT@. leading hypothesis, ei Xpicrds ovdx eviryepra:, and affecting not only the living, but the dead. The term koundévres ev Xpior@ (‘laid to sleep in Christ,’ i. e. in faith and com- munion with Him; 7d év tH miores gnoiv, Chrys. 1) is studiously chosen, as involving and carrying with it the very persuasion which, on the assumption of ver. 17, would be annihilated. On the term koimacba in reference to death, see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 13; and on the close union of the prepositional clause with the participle, see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2. améAovTo] ‘ have perished, —the aorist not neces- sarily referring to the time when they breathed out their last breath, in which case the verb would simply have a physical reference (‘nulli sunt,’ Beng.), but to the améAea after this world consequent on their dying in their sins: arwAdueda, kal ert €opey ey Tais amaptiots, Chrys. on ver. 19. Whether that amr#Aca is completed or not the tense does not specify: the assumption being true, it states that it came, We thus retain in English the ‘ have’ as less sharply placing the whole action in the past; the difference between the Greek aorist and the English aorist being apparently just this,—that in English the tense remands us so wholly to the past as to imply that the action was completed and done with, whereas in Greek the tense refers us to the past, but is silent as to the completion or non- completion of the action: see Kiihner, Gr. 386. 3, and notes on Phil. i. 29. On the use and mean- ing of améAAvm in the N. T., see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p- 455- 19. el év TH Co TavTH K.T.A.] ‘Tf we are only having our hope in Christ in this life:’ designedly un- connected sentence, expressing with abruptness and pathos the sad lot of the living Christian, as the for- mer verse alluded to that of the de- parted. The words, though appy. simple in meaning and structure, require some care in their interpre- tation. The following seem to be the structural and grammatical de- tails on which a correct interpreta- tion must be based. (1) The lead- ing emphasis rests on the words év 7h (wi Tavern, as calling the hearer’s or reader’s attention to the present as well as future issues of a hope such as that here assumed and im- plied, viz. an abiding hope during life (perf. part.: see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. e) in a dead Christ. (2) The appended adverb pévoy is also, as its position indicates, distinctly emphatic, and qualifies the whole clause (Rev. marg.),—not merely the ev Th (wh Tatty from which it really © is structurally dissociated. The ad- verb excludes the conception of the hope, as specified, having any future significance. It begins in this life, closes with this life, and looks for nothing beyond: daorepdvwros 7 wuxh pever, Chrys. (3) The éopev is not a mere associated auxiliary to the participle, so that 7Am«dTes eopev is only a little stronger than 7Azt- Kouev (I Tim. iv. 10: comp. notes im loc. ), and practically equivalent to it, but is the copula, what pre- cedes being the predicate,—‘ persons EV « ‘19,220, 2. 299 HArmiKotes eopev povov, eeewdTepor Tdvtwy av- Opdzav éerper. Christ verily has risen, and in Him all will rise. Then will Novi dé, Xpuoros eyryeptat ek ve- 20 nw > A cal Tullow the minty KPO@V, A7rapyYy TOV KEKOLLNMEVOV. ETrEL- 2K issues of the future, 20. Kekoiunuévwy] So, without any addition, Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds éyevero. having only hope in Christ in this life:’ comp. Vulg., ‘sperantes su- mus,’ and contrast ‘speravimus,’ Erasm., Beng.; ‘speramus,’ Beza. The translation adopted above recog- nizes as far as possible these details but conformably with English em- phasis transposes the position of the emphatic words. On the force of the év Xptore (‘im Christ,’ —He being the object in whom the hope was placed), see notes on Eph. a ‘we are more than all men to be pitied,’ ‘miserabiliores sumus omni- bus hominibus,’ Vulg.; because we lead self-denying, suffering, and persecuted lives (1 Cor. v. 12 sqq.), and, after all, are only hopers in Christ in this life, with no ray to cheer us in the future: in this world, ma@fuara (Rom. viii. 18), in the world to come, améAcia. The form €Acewds (not from éAeos, but from éAeéw; see Don. Gr. § 362) is found in Attic Greek: comp. Winer, Gr. § 16.3. y. For an instructive sermon on this text, see Frank, Serm. 37, Vol. 1. p. 148 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.). éXcetvéTepot k.T.A. | 20-28. Christ's resurrection that from which all the issues of the boundless future directly flow. Nuvi &é ‘But, as it is, Christ hath been raised from the dead:’ contrasted statement, by means of the logical vuvi (see notes on ch. xiii. 13, and comp. notes on K.T-A-] xii. 18), with what has preceded, all the deductions from the contrary hypothesis (ver. 14 sqq.) being in- ferentially negatived (see Beng.), and the true state of the case, with all its momentous consequences, clearly set forth ; Aourdy aropaytikas Aéyet, Chrys. (Cram. Cat.). There is some little doubt as to the logical connexion of this verse,— whether it is to be considered as beginning a new paragraph (Rev. comp. Westc. and Hort), as conclud- ing the foregoing argument (T7req.), or as forming a kind of link between ver. I9 and ver. 21,—standing in contrast with the former, and calling out the argument that is opened up by the latter (Lachm., Tisch.). On the whole, the first view seems to be the most contextually natural. In what precedes the Apostle shows the effect which the non-resurrec- tion of Christ would have had, first, on Christian preaching, and next on Christian life. In what follows he shows the effect of that which is actually and truly the fact, —Christ’s resurrection: comp. Hofmann i loc. atrapx?) TOV KeKotp- npévov] ‘the first-fruits of them that are fallen asleep ;’ apposition, not simply to the foregoing nomina- tive, but to the nominative as as- sociated with the predication,—the risen Christ being the amapx4, and the defining partitive gen. specifying those to whom He stood in this re- lation ; comp. Col. i. 18, mpwrdroxos 300 TIPO KOPINOIOYS ITIPOTH. 57) yap Ov avOpadov Odvaros, kat dv avOpemov ava- 22 oTacls veKpov. woTep yap VT@ Ada TavTes ato- 21. @dvaros} So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating evidence; Rec., 6 @dvaros. €k Tay vexpoy, and Rev. i. 5, mpwrd- ToKos Tay vexpoy, Where the genitive is of a similarly partitive character. The question is very elaborately discussed by Origen (Cram. Cat.) whether we are to understand from this passage that our Lord was the amrapx% of all, or only of the faithful. That in the resurrection of Christ we have the assurance that all will rise appears to be certain from the general tenor of the chapter, and particularly from ver. 22, but that the @vpaua of which He is here spoken of as the amapx? (Rom. xi. 16) is equally inclusive is by no means similarly clear. The ex- pression Tay Kekoiunpéevwr, especially with vexp@y in the same verse, ap- pears to point the other way, and to suggest the limitation to the sleeping faithful, to those ‘qui in spe resurrectionis quiescunt,’ Aquin. 21. émev8y yap «.7.A.] ‘For since through man cometh death; ’ confirmatory reason for the fore- going statement (e?ro, kal airioroyel, Chrys.), the ere:54 (‘quoniam,’ Vulg., Arm.), with its causal and ratiocina- tive force (see notes on Phil. ii. 26), putting forward the reference to the foreordering of divine mercy, and the ydp, with its usual confirmatory reference, substantiating the amapx} Tav Kexounucvey of the preceding verse. Christ verily was the first- fruits of the kexounuévor; man, in His blessed person, was the causa medians of avdoracis, aS man was originally the causa medians of Odva- Tos ; comp. esp. the important paral- lel statements in Rom. y. 12 sqq., where the manner of the entry of death, viz. 1d Tis Guaprias (ver. 12; scil. TG Tov évds wapamTéuari, ver. 15), and the conyerse are both very fully discussed and explained. The ellipsis is to be supplied simply by éort, but in a stronger sense than that of the mere copula, scil. ‘exists,’ — ‘facta est,’ Copt., Auth. ; see Winer, Gr. § 64. 3. b. avaoTracis vexpov] ‘resurrection of the dead,’ or, more exactly, of dead men,—the article being designedly omitted, as in av@pémov and @dvaros, that each term might stand forth in its most general form and its unrestricted breadth of meaning; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 462. h. The application of this general statement appears in the following verse. 22. domep yap «.7.A.] ‘For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive ;’ confirma- tory explanation of the preceding verse, the contrastive aomep (‘ep vim eam {[comparativam], quam habet &s, usitato more auget atque effert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 768), bringing out the full significance and contrasted relations of the 6 ap- Opémov in each member of the fore- going verse. Two points require careful consideration,—the meaning of év in each member, and the lati- tude of the meaning of mdvres. As regards (1) the meaning of év, there can be no reason for departing - from the prevailing reference of the. preposition (in the case of persons), , to the ‘sphere,’ ‘substratum,’ or ‘basis ’ (see notes on Gal. i. 24, il. 17, and comp. above, ch. vii. 24 and Ry ad, AST 301 , A \2 “A a td OvnocKovew, ovTws kal ev 7@ Xpiot@ wavtes Cworron- Ojoovra. exaotos S€ &v TO idl Tdypate arapyy) 23 notes im loc.), in which, or on which, the action takes place. The preposition will thus in each mem- ber of the verse specify the one in whom, as it were, the mdvres were, included, or (more probably) on whom they depended as the basis (comp. Winer, Gr. § 48. a. 3, d), whether in reference to 7 dro- Oviokew or to Td (woroeicba. All die in Adam; human nature, as Cyril (Cram. Cat.) says, being con- demned in him: all are quickened, or made alive, in Christ, His vivify- ing power being imparted to all. It is more difficult (2) to decide on the latitude of the reference of the second wdvres, many of the best interpreters (Augustine, Grot., Beng., al.) considering that the év Xpiorg and the use of the term (woroetoc bat rather than éye/per@a: or avioracbat must limit the reference to believers : so also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 99, Vol. 1. p. 72 note (Transl.). As, however, the first rdéyres must, by the nature of the case, include all (‘omnes filii hominum,’ Syr.), and as the second mavres cannot, on any sound principles of interpretation, be regarded as quantitatively dif- ferent from the first, especially in a studied antithesis like the present (Screp—otrws rai),—we adopt, with the Greek interpreters, the inclusive reference, and regard the €xaoros 5é «.7.A. in ver. 23 as guarding, and designed to guard, against any mis- conception of the inclusiveness : see Theodoret in loc., and comp. Origen (Cram. Cat.), who appears to have taken the inclusive view, though he has failed to make his meaning per- fectly clear. Christ will quicken all ; all will hear His voice, and will go forth from the grave, but not all to the true avdoracis (wis: see John v. 29. The general truth is well expressed by Bp Martensen,—‘ the unconditional destiny of all men is immortality ; but we at the same time teach that mankind are only saved conditionally, by being born again, and made holy,’ Chr. Dog- matics, § 274, p. 454 (Transl.). The use of mayres in Rom. v. 18, is simi- larly inclusive; see Meyer in loc. CoototnOycovrar) ‘shall be quick- ened or made alive.’ There is not in this word any intrinsic ‘sensus beat resurrectionis,’ Grot. It sim- ply implies ‘to quicken,’ ‘ vivificare,’ Vulg., whether in a spiritual (John V. 21, vi. 63, Rom. viii. 11), or in a natural, sense (ch. xv. 36, Rom. iv. 17), the context in each case being the guide as to which of the two senses is referred to. It ishere used rather than dvacrhoovrat, or even eyepOjcovra, as suggesting more distinctly agency and agent, and so the real source of the davdoraots. The word is occasionally found in classical Greek: see Theophrast. de Causis Plant. m1. 22, (woroe? tws 7 Oepudtns avocimovea Thy pitay ; see also Aristot. Hist. Anim. v. 27. 23. Exacros Sé x.7.A.] ‘ But each im his own band or class :’ limita- tion, by means of the antithetical 5é, of the inclusive statement in the preceding clause; tva uh thy Cworol- now Kowhy &kovoas, kal ros auaptw- Aobs voulons od CerOa, emiryayey Exa- oros 5€ x.7.A. Chrys.; comp. Theod. The word rdyua is here used in its proper and technical sense of ‘band’ or ‘company’ (comp. Arrian, Ars Tact. cap. 9, uemeptouevor es Taypara, 2 Sam. xxili. 13, Taya tay dddAopd- 302 TIPOS KOPINOIOYS IIPOTH. , » c lal A > ~ , Xpworos, ewerTa ol TOV XpioTov ev TH Tapovoia 23. Tod Xpicrod) The rod is omitted in Rec., apparently from over- sight or error. Awy), not ‘order’ in reference to desert or merit (a&éuar1, Zonaras, Lex. p. 1714, referring to this pass- age; compare Tertull. De Reswrr. cap. 48), or to time: so perhaps Theodoret (who here alludes to ‘ the sheep’ and ‘the goats’ of Matth. Xxv. 32), but appy. not any of the Vy. or early interpreters, all of whom appear to regard the word as synonymous with rdtis. This latter view is maintained by De Wette, Riickert, al., but without any lin- guistie support, except the singu- larly precarious assertion, that as +dtis sometimes may bear the proper meaning of tdyuc, so Tdyua may sometimes bear the usual meaning of rdtis. The instinct of Bengel (though he adopts the meaning of ‘ordo’) led him rightly to say, ‘rdéis tamen est abstractum, tayua con- cretum.’ For examples of the cor- rect meaning of the word, see the copious list in Steph. Thesawr. s. v. Vol. vu. p. 1767 (ed. Hase), where the uses of this word are very fully illustrated. atrapx7 Xprorés] ‘as the firstfrwits, Christ;’ scil. ‘vivificatus est’ (Est.), the fact of the case suggesting the tense. To supply the auxiliary verb in this verse (Beng.; comp. Hofm.) is to mar the natural continuity, and the almost certain structural connexion of this verse with the preceding: note, however, the typography of Weste. and Hort, which seems rather to indicate a slight break between the verses. On the contrary Lachm. separates the two verses only by a comma. This, however, clearly weakens the independence and force of the first clause of the verse. The most natural typography and punc- tuation seems be that of the text: the words €xaoros k.7.A. enunciate a new but associated fact, which is then illustrated and substantiated by what follows. émeuta ob Tod Xptorod] ‘then they that are Christ’s,’ ‘qui ad Christum pertin-- ent,’ Est., ‘Christum attinentes,’ AXth.: comp. Gal. v.24. The idea of proximity in point of time, which is often marked by é7e:ra (see notes oni Thess. iv. 17), cannot here be pressed. It marks the next and second act in the mighty drama, but the real epoch of the occurrence to which it refers is defined by the concluding words of the verse. év TH tTapovola avtot|] ‘at His coming :’ specification of the time and circumstances, in which, and under which, the of tod Xpiorod will be made alive; their (worofnois will be involved in His zapovota. This mapovola of Christ is not, merely or exclusively, to establish His kingdom (comp. Meyer in loc.), but, to judge the quick and the dead; kara roy ris cvvteAclas Kaipdr, Theod.; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19, iii. 13, iv. 15, v.23, al. Whether any, and, if any, what interval is to be sup- posed to exist between this rapovata and the 7d téAos of the following verse,—in fact between the é7eita and the eira,—the sober interpreter cannot presume even to attempt to indicate. This only may be said, that the language seems to imply a kind of interval; but that there is nothing in the particles or in the passage to warrant our conceiving it XV. 24. 303 avrov. elta Td Tédos, OTav TapadiOG Ti Bacrrelay 24 TO Oc@ Kai TaTpl, OTav KaTapyjon Tacay apy 24. mapadid¢) So Weste. and Hort, with appy. preponderating authority. The decision between this and mapadidoi (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev.) is critically very difficult. It is quite possible that mapad:5o? may really be a subjunctive (see Moulton in Winer, Gr. § 41. 1. a), and waradiid a super- fluous correction. On the whole, however, as this form of the subjunctive does not seem certainly made out, and as the diplomatic preponderance is perhaps slightly in favour of rapad.d¢, we adopt this latter reading. to be longer than would include the subjugation of every foe and every power of evil, and all that may be immediately associated with the mighty téAos which is specified in the succeeding verse: comp. Plitt, Glaubenslehre, § 78, Vol. 1. p. 370. It must be carefully re- membered that the Apostle is here dealing with a single subject, the resurrection of the dead, and not with the connected details of eschato- logy. These must be gathered from other passages and other portions of Scripture: comp. notes on 1 Thess. iv. 17. The great difficulty in Christian eschatalogy is the exact position which all that is specified in Rey. xx. 4 is to be supposed to hold in the sequences of the un- folding future. On this profound subject, see the wise and suggestive comments of Dorner, Chr. Doctrine, § 152, Vol. rv. p. 389 sq. (Transl.). Perhaps all that can safely be said is, that neither here nor in 1 Thess. iv. 16 does the Apostle preclude the conception of a resurrection of the just (comp. Luke xiv. 14)—possibly gradual (Dorner, p. 398, note),— prior to that of the general resurrec- tion,—that in some passages (con- sider Rom. xi. 12-15), he does seem’ to have looked for a ‘ flowering- time’ of the Church prior to the close of human history (see Dorner, p. 390, 398),—and that here he dis- tinctly implies a closing conflict with all the powers of evil (comp. Rey. xx. 7, 15) immediately prior to the end. That the millennial binding of Satan is to be dated from the death and resurrection of our Lord, has been recently urged by Medd, Bampton Lectures (1882), Note 12, p. 524 sqq.,—but to the detriment, as it would seem, of the distinctive idea of the millennium: see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 281, p- 470 sq. (Transl.). 24. elta Td TéAOS] ‘ Then cometh the end,’—of all things, of all that God has revealed to man; not merely of the resurrection (Meyer), nor of the last scenes of the world’s history (comp. De W.), but, as the use of the word in passages of this nature seems always to indicate, of all things in the ordinary and in- clusive sense of the words ; ra mpdy- para Gmayta AfWerat TéXos, Chrys. : comp. I Pet. iv. 7. The associated circumstances connected with this TéAos are then specified. On the Bible sequence of ‘ the last things,’ see Medd, Bampton Lect. note 17, p- 564. brav trapadt8o K.7.A.) ‘when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God and the Father,’ scil. ‘to God, who is also Father, (whether of our Lord Jesus or of us Christians,—here, most probably, the former: compare Est. in loc.) : temporal clause specifying that 304 TIPOS KOPIN@IOYS IIPOTH. A al cy , ‘ 8 , 8 “a 4 Pie 25 Kal TAOCQAV efovo lav KQL VVGJLW. €l y2p QUTOV which is associated and contempo- raneous with the réAos, —the present subjunctive, as usual, denoting simple futurity regarded as probable or expected (see Kiihner, G7. § 394. 1, Donalds. Gr. § 513), and the 8ray the uncertainty of the time when that future will come to pass. The solemn title 6 @eds kal mathp occurs several times in the N. T., more com- monly with an appended genitive (Rom. xv. 16, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Gal. ty phi. 3, Coli. 3,0) Dhess. 1..35 iii. 11, 13, 1 Pet.i. 3), but occasionally without,—as here, Eph. v. 20, James i. 27, and (with Kvpioy instead of @edv) iii. 9. On the use of the formula with an associated gen., see notes on Gal. i. 4, and on the best mode of translation, the notes to Transl. of Gal. l.c. The mean- ing of this momentous clause, and even of individual words about which there can be no _ possible doubt (e. g. mapadiSdvat, compare Chrys., Theoph., al.), has been fre- quently obscured by dogmatical bias. The only expression about which there may reasonably be some doubt is BactAeia. That it is more inclusive than the ‘regnum gratia,’ in its ordinary acceptance, and that it may have some reference to the millennial kingdom, is prob- ably to be inferred from the wide horizon of this holy revelation. This kingdom the Eternal Son, at the last, delivers up to the Eternal Father, not as though He were Himself thereby -yupvotpevos ris Baotrelas (Theod.), but as ovv@povos @cov, a sharer in it for evermore (Luke i. 33). As Waterland well says: ‘As all things descend from the Father by the Son, so by the same Son do all things ascend up to the Father,’ On Clarke’s Expos. of Catech. ch. m1. (Works, Vol. rv. p- 23, ed. 2). As to the new earth and Christ’s abiding presence hereon with His redeemed (Medd, J. c¢. p. 365 sq.), no inference can safely be drawn from this passage. Stav Kkatapyyon K.7.A.] ‘when he shall have done away with, or brought to nought, every princip- ality, and every authority and power ;’ further elucidation of the when, by the mention of that which must be prior to the 7d rapadiddéva, the aor. subj. as contrasted with the present subj. marking the act of the 7d karapyety as completed before the delivering up of the kingdom ; comp. Kiihner, Gir. § 388. 2. 2. The abstract terms apyn, etovoia, Sivas, are used here, as in Rom. viii. 38, Eph. i. 25, iii. 10, vi. 13, Col. i. 16, al., to designate spiritual and an- gelical beings, the context in each case showing whether the reference is to good or to evil Intelligences, or to both. Here the context clearly implies that Powers of evil are alone in the Apostle’s thoughts: contrast Eph. i. 21, and see notes in loc. On katapyeiy (‘evacuare,’ Vulg. ; ‘ga-tairan,’ Goth.; ‘ abolere,’ Copt.), comp. notes on Gal. v. 4. It does not here imply so much total destruction as absolute subjugation : comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p- 332 (ed. Burton). The word, how- ever, even in this single Epistle (where it occurs nine times), bears plainly different shades of meaning : see Cremer, Worterb.s. v. p. 261 sq. 25. Set yap «.7.A.] ‘For He must reign,’ sc. continue to exercise His sovereignty, T& Tod BaotAevoytos mo.etv, Phot.: confirmatory elucida- tion of the foregoing statement that : XV. 25, 26. 305 Bacrievew adype od 09 mdvras Tods €xOpods bird Tods 7ddas avdTov. exyatos €xOpds Katapyettar 6 26 25. &yxp:) So Tisch., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm., Treg., Rev., &xpis. The & is omitted after ob by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. inserts ay. the 7d mapadiSdvar «.7.A. will not take place until the 7d karapyjoa «.7.’. has been accomplished, the de? solemnly pointing to the ‘ eter- num et immutabile Dei decretum’ (Est.), as illustrated by the words of Messianic prophecy (Psalm ex. 1; see Matth. xxii. 43), to which there is here a probable allusion. Gxpt od 64 x.7.A.] ‘ until He shall have put all His enemies under His feet,’—without &, according to the prevailing usage of the N. T. in reference to these temporal com- pound particles; comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 3, note. On the distinction between such particles with, and without &, see Hermann, Partic. &y, p. 109, and comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1m. p. 568. Thesubject of 67 is certainly not God, but, as syntactic clearness obviously requires, the sub- ject of the whole passage, viz. our Lord. Estius (who with Beza, al., refers 67 to Q@eds, ver. 24) here departs from his usual clear and common-sense principle of interpre- tation, led appy. by a desire to har- monize the present verse with the Psalm, to which, however, it is, at the most, only an allusion. In cases such as the present there is no need whatever for reading aérov, the reference to the true subject of the verse being natural and obvious: see notes on Eph. i. 9, and the comments of Winer, Gr. § 22. 5. b. On the forms &xp:, &xpis, see id. §$ 5. I. b., and on the distinction between &xp: and wéxpi, notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9. The doctrinal harmony of this passage with Rev. xi. 15 (comp. Luke i. 33), and the eternity of the kingdom of Christ is well set forth by Pearson, Creed, Art. vr. Vol. 1. p. 334 sq. (ed. Burton). On the ‘regnum potentiw,’ and the ‘regnum gloriew,’ see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 127. 2, Vol. Iv. p. 144 sq. 26. Ecxatog éxOpds «.7.A.] As the last enemy, Death is brought to nought ;’ the present tense bringing up vividly the solemn and certain future ; Winer, G*. § 40. 2. a, Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 5. Death is here per- sonified (Isaiah xxy. 8, Rev. xx. 14): he is brought to nought, by every being over whom his power had ex- tended being called up to life and to judgment. Death is, at last, cast with Hades into the lake of fire (Rev. xx. 14), but thither also they over whom the dreadful power of 6 @dvaros 6 debrepos will exercise its ultimate energies; see Pearson, Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p. 333 (ed. Burton). Any doctrinal deductions from this passage in favour of the annihilation of the wicked (Plitt, Evang. Glaubenslehre, Vol. u. p. 414, compare Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 596, Vol. mt. p. 194 sq. ed. 2),— a view to which popular modern thought is to some extent gravitat- ing,—are in the highest degree pre- carious: see on the contrary, the convincing comments of Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 287, p. 481 (Transl.), and compare Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 154, Vol. rv. p. 418 (Transl.). X 306 27 Oavaros. TIPO KOPINOIOY2 IIPOTH. > a oy A »” 7 , e , lol avTOv. OTav O€ ELT, OTL TAVTA VTOTETAKTAL, d7Aov 27. wavtTa yap bréragev x.T.A.] ‘ For He put all things under His feet:’ confirmation of the truth of the preceding statement, érxaros éxOpds x.7.A., by the language of Scripture (Psalm viii. 7), to which the Apostle here assigns its fullest and deepest significance, viz. that which the lordship of man over the created things around him was de- signed to foreshadow,—the lordship of the Son of Man over all things in their widest amplitude (the em- phasis obviously rests on réyra) and so, over the last enemy. The sub- ject of breratey is thus the subject of the passage alluded to, scil. 6 @cds. For the similarly antitypical application of the words of the Psalm, see Eph. i. 22, Heb. ii. 8. étav 6S ecimn] ‘But when He hath (thus) said;’ scil. God, as speaking by the mouth of the Psalmist, the subject of the ein being naturally the same as that of the preceding verb: comp. Winer, Gr. § 64.3.6. The Apostle is now passing onward by means of the continuative and slightly anti- thetical 6 (see notes on ch. x. 20) to the deeper theme of the delivering up of the kingdom to God and all that is implied and involved in it. In regard of the aor. etry it appears doubtful whether, in this particular formula, the full force of the future exact (‘quando dixerit,’ Iren. v. 36, ‘cum dixerit,’ Hil. Psalm. ix. al.; see the notes of Sabatier, Bibl. Sacr. Vol. 111. p. 715) is to be recog- nized, or only that trace of it which is perhaps just preserved by the ‘thus’ of the above translation. The latter seems most in harmony with the context, in which the moment of thought seems to rest more on the general fact of the declaration than on the more specific fact of its having been made at the Tékos. The change to the perf. tmotéraxrat, aS marking the endur- ing nature of the émératis, is clearly designed. The 67: is here objective (‘that ;’ comp. Copt., Arm.) rather than merely recitative, as in Vulg., Goth. It is omitted in B; Clarom., Vulg., al.,and some Ff, but is appy. genuine. SHAov Sri] ‘it is manifest that it is so,’ scil. ‘that all things are put in subjection;’ the wdvra imoréraxra being supplied from the preceding member: see exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 551. 6. rem., and comp. Winer, Gr. § 64. I. a. So appy. Syr. [‘notum est quod preter illum’), Goth., Copt., Zth., in all of which 87A0y appears to be taken in its usual sense and the ellipsis supplied by the auxiliary verb understood. It is, however, perfectly possible to take djAov ort as a kind of compound adverb (Kiihner, Gr. 1. c. and § 548. 3), ‘manifestly,’ ‘obviously,’ and to regard the words from éray to the end of the verse as forming a sus- pended protasis, resumed and sup- plied with an apodosis in ver. 28, ‘when, I say, all things have &c.’ This latter construction is adopted by the Latin interpreter of Irenzus (Her. v. 36, ‘ scilicet absque eo, qui subjecit ’) and appy. by Vulg., Clar. Hilary, al., but is frigid and forced, and, according to Hofmann, logically involves the reference of ein to Christ,—a reference which, though j maintained by Hofmann and Hein- rici, supplies in itself a strong argument against the proposed We , ‘ ‘ ce / e * “ , TAVTA yap umeTacev UVTO TOUS T00as a { { i XY. 27, 28. 307 a ¢ - OT ExTdS TOD UroTakavTos a’T@ Ta TavTa. Stav Se‘ 28 “~ ‘ Urotay) avT@ Ta TavTa, TOTe Kal avdTds 6 vids vrotayynoeta, TO dToTd€avts aiT@® Ta TavTa, iva 7 a 7 6 Obs Ta TavTA ev TACW. 28. mdvra év raow] So Lachm., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre- construction. In the last words of the verse the reference is of course to God, but the periphrasis makes the reasoning more obvious and the tenor of the sentence more reverent: *summam rerum omnium ex Psalmo potenter et sapienter demonstrat apostolus,’ Beng. Ta TavTa] ‘all things,’—not appy. here or in v. 28 with any studied change of meaning, as compared with the mdvta above, the intercalation of the article having probably arisen from the previous occurrence of the mdvta; ‘thé alla,’ Goth.,—rightly, but too strongly. That there is a difference between the two ex- pressions is, however, not the less true; mdvra apparently meaning all things as existing, 74 mdyra all things in their totality: see Winer, Gr. § 18. 8. 28. 6tav 6S tootrayq «.7T.A.] ‘And when all things shall. have been subjected unto Him ;’ further statement, by means of the con- tinuative and slightly antithetical dé, of the foregoing revelation in its most transcendent and ultimate issues. The delivering up of the kingdom to the eternal Father, of ver. 24, is developed into the still more sublime mystery which this most blessed verse finally discloses. We are here at the ultimate bounds of all human thought. Kal attis 6 vlds tmotrayrcerat] ‘ then shall even the Son Himself be subjected ;’ the ascensive kal (here better even than also) marking that even He to whom all things have been placed in subjection will, in TOTE His own adorable person, be sub- jected (we must not, even with Waterland, dare to dilute this pas-' sive, or the contextual meaning of the word: ‘Apostolus agit in toto contextu de veri proprieque dict& subjectione,’ Estius) to the God and Father of all. The meaning of this brotayh has been very diversely stated and estimated, and, in only too many instances, without that close regard to the context which must be, and ought to be, our only guide. That the reference through- out this passage is to the Son in His mediatorial aspect (comp. Bull, Prim. Trad. v1. 9), and that He is here represented ‘in gubernando mundo tanquam Patris vicarius’ (Calv.; consider Matth. xxviii. 18), is exegetically certain. In this aspect and capacity trorayhoerai. His mediatorial work will be con- cluded ; the eternal purposes of the Incarnation will have been fulfilled ; in avrompoalperos (Cyr.- Hieros. Catech. xv. 30) He will be- come subject to Him to whom He will have delivered up His kingdom, and God, the eternal and tri-personal, will become all in all. This is the view substantially taken by all the early interpreters, and is consistent alike with impartial exegesis and catholic truth: see Waterland on Clarke’s Expos. of Catech., Vol. tv. p. 24 (ed. 2), Philippi, Kirchl. Glaubensl. Part 1. p. 205 sq. (ed. 2), and for an oration on this text, Greg.-Nyss. Opera, Vol. u. p. 6 sq. (Par. 1638). tva fb Ocds K.7.A.) ‘in order that God may be x2 evrrelOera 308 29 IPOS KOPINGIOYS- , ’"Evet ti toujoovow ot Bamrlo- Bs. why + nee and why do we apostles daily face death ? ponderant authority: Rec., Tisch., 7a xdvra év xaow. It may be observed, in the earlier part of the verse, that the xai before airds is certainly very doubtful. The preponderance of authority, external and internal, seems slightly in its favour. It is omitted by Treg., bracketted by Lachm., and — Westc. and Hort, but definitely retained by Rec., Tisch., and Rev. all in all;’ purpose of the Srotayh- cera: x.T.A., the plenary presence and immanence of God, Father, Son, and Spirit (comp. Jerome, Epist. 55 [ad Amandum); Hilary, de Trin. xI. 40, appears to limit the @cds to Christ) in all things and in all beings in which, during the existence of the mediatorial kingdom, that plenary immanence could not be fully realized; ‘tune remoto velo palam cernemus Deum in sua ma- jestate regnantem; neque amplius media erit Christi humanitas, que nos ab ulteriore Dei conspectu co- hibeat,’ Calv. On this the sublimest revelation ever vouchsafed to mortal man, we presume not to make any further comment. We leave the passage in all the amplitude of its universality, regarding the wacw as probably the generalizing neuter (Winer, Gr. § 27. 5), and as in- cluding all persons and all things; comp. Eph. i. 23: in Col. iii. 11 the context implies the masculine. While, however, it seems most reverent thus to leave it, we cer- tainly draw from it no inferences in favour of the popular universalism which has been derived from it: comp. De Wette in loc. God will be all in all, but He will be so in ail His attributes, in His justice and His righteousness, as well as in His mercy and His love. For some sober comments on this pro- found subject, see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 283 sqq-., p. 474 sqq. (Transl.), Philippi, Kirchl. Glau- bensl. Part m. p. 393 sq. (hardly, however, fair on Martensen), and Dorner, Christian Doctrine, § 154, Vol. rv. p. 419 sqq. (Transl.). 29-34. Further arguments for the reality of the resurrection of the dead. 29. éael +i woijcovoty] ‘ Else what shall they do?’ scil. if the develop- ment here set forth be an unreality ; the retrospective érei (‘alioquin,’ Vulg.; ‘Aithth4u,’ Goth. ; ‘autrement,” Reuss), as usual, referringnot to any more remote portion of the argu- ment (e.g. ver. 20, oF ver. 23, axapxh Xpirbs x.7.A.), but to the clauses immediately preceding, set- ting forth, as they do, the mighty sequences and issues of the primal truth. The hypothesis involved in the particle is to be drawn from the’ context : see Buttm. Gr. N. T. p. 308, where this use of the particle (Germ. ‘da sonst’) is illustrated by ex- amples. On the derivation (éi, se. éxl rodre, and ei), see Curtius, Etym. p- 265 (ed. 4), and on the distinction between this particle and ydp, notes on ch. v. 4: comp. also notes on ch. xiv. 16. The future zormcovcw has here a generalizing character,— what will they do?’ ‘ what are they to have recourse to?’ the proper sense of futurity being still conserved in the latent reference to cases that might conceivably hereafter come before them: see Kiihner, Gr. § 387. 2, and comp. Kriger, Sprachl. § 53. 7. 1, Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, and notes on ch. viii. 8. of Bartt- : WaPiies tb a ,! pevor Umép TOY veKpav ; El Cdpevor baep trOv vexpdv] ‘who are baptized for the dead,’ scil. ‘receive baptism on their behalf;’ the article with the present parti- ciple being here probably substan- tival, and pointing to a class which adopted the practice; comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 7- Of these obscure and difficult words the interpretations are verynumerous. Two only, how- ever, appear to deserve serious con- sideration: (a) that of the Greek expositors, according to which ray vexpav is to be regarded as really practically equivalent to ris ava- ordcews Tay vexpay (‘ut reviviscant ex mortuis,’ th.), and baptism as the manifestation of belief in the doctrine ; él rovr@ Barri(n, TH Tov vekpod oématos dvacTdce motebwry bri obweTs wéver vexpdv, Chrys.; (b) that of Ambrosiaster, Anselm, and the great majority of modern inter- preters, according to which tay vexpay is to be referred to dead un- baptized believers,for whose assumed spiritual benefit living believers were baptized as proxies. This custom certainly existed at an early period (Tertull. de Resurr. cap. 48, adv. Mare. v. 10; comp. Epiph. Her. xxvill. 7), and may have been prac- tised in some instances by Corin- thian converts, or at least have been known to them as a practice which was occasionally resorted to. Of these two interpretations the first puts a strain upon the preposition, of which no similar instance exists in St Paul’s Epp., or indeed in the whole of the New Testament. That the simple irtp can be forced into meaning ‘in expectation of the resurrection,’ as regarded possible by some of the defenders of (a), is really inconceivable. It is possible Xv. 29. 309 Okws vexpol ovdK éyei- that the whole expression trip tray vexpov might mean ‘in the matter of the dead,’ ‘ in regard of the dead’ (comp. 2 Cor. i. 6, and perhaps 2 Thess. ii. 1, but see notes in loc.), but to elicit from this what is desired, is to postulate an ellipsis (tis avaordcews) which, in a doctri- nal passage like the present, could hardly have been left to the ordinary hearer or reader to supply. We decide therefore in favour of (b), not, however, without recognizing that the use of the apparently gen- eric article tT @y vexpay is not what we should here have expected (see Winer, Gr. § 19. 1 ; it may, however, mean ‘the dead’ in whom the of Barri(suevor are interested), and that the reference to a custom which, if it then existed, must have been con- demned, creates a real difficulty. It is to be observed, however, that the Apostle in no way connects himself or his converts with these Bamri(éuevor (contrast this with the jets in the next member of the verse), but sim- ply alludes to them as practising what he refers to; ‘non factum illorum probat, sed fidem fixam in resurrectione ostendit,’ Ambrosiaster in loc. Of the various other in- terpretations, the majority either endeavour to extort from the words a meaning which the Greek will not bear (‘jamjam morituri,’ Est.; ‘de- venientes ad mortuos,’ Beng.), or assign to them some forms of private interpretation which are obviously inconsistent either with the tenor of the passage or the principles of a sober exegesis. For a collection of these interpretations, see Wolf, Cure Philol. et Crit. (in loc.), and the long note of Meyer in loc. el bAws x.t-A.-] ‘Tf the dead are 310 IPOS KOPINGIOYS TIPOTH. , ‘\ , € \ Si nes id ‘ 30 porta, Ti Kal BantilovTar umEp avTwv; TL Kat 31 Hpets Kwdvvedopev Tacav apav; Kal’ jpépav uToOvy 1) THY vpmeTepay Kartynow, adeddoi, Hv aToOvyckw, v7) THY UMETEpA Xnow, ol, 1) 29. avTar] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., ray vexpav. 31. adeApol] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort., on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. omits. not raised at all:’ hypothetical clause corresponding to the latent hypothesis involved in the preceding émei,—here expressed, there under- stood. All the best editors now rightly connect with what follows, rather than with what precedes: so appy. the Greek expositors: comp. Theodoret im loc. On the use of dAws (‘ omnino,’ Vulg.), see notes on Conve Le: Tar dip avTév] TL Kal Bamrtilov- ‘why are they verily baptized for them?’ the em- phatic «al standing in a kind of correlation to the preceding éAws, and qualifying probably the whole sentence, thus marking the profitless character of the whole proceeding: see Biumlein, Partik. p. 152. 30. Tl Kal typets K.7.A.] * Why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour 2’ the rad here being associated closely with the jets, and marking the case of the Apostle and the early preachers of the Gospel as a further illustrative argument: ¢« ph iy avaoracis, Tivos evexey exivduvevouer, Theoph. 31. Kad’ Awépayv atroOvicKe, vy «.7.A.] ‘I die daily ; yea, I affirm it, by the glorying in you ;’ expan- sion of the preceding thought in reference to the Apostle’s own case, and confirmed by a strong assevera- tion. The amo0vjoxw obviously refers to the dangers which the Apostle as an éemifavdrios (see ch. iv. 9) en- countered daily; not only was he prepared to die (Polycarp, Fragment 11), but daily was he in cireum- stances that menaced life; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 11, Rom. viii. 36: Siqvexas euavtdy eis mpovimrous Bavdrous eKdl- dwut, Theodoret; comp. Rom. viii. 36, 2 Cor. iy. -1i,. Ely 23: ee asseverative particle v} only occurs in this passage in the N. T., but is very common in Attic Greek. It is always associated with an accusa- tive, some asseverating verb (Syr., Arm. insert ‘juro’) of the nature of duvuut (regularly associated in such expressions with the accusative) being supposed to be understood ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 409.4. For its etymology (probably from the pro- nominal stem na) and affinities, see Donalds. Crat. § 189, Curtius, Htym. No. 437, p. 283 sq. (ed. 2). Ti dpetépav kavxnory] ‘the glory- ing im you,’ i.e. ‘the glorying about you,’ Thy iuetépay mpokowhy ep’ 7 Kkavx@uat, Theoph.,—the possessive pronoun being here used objectively, as in ch. xi. 24 (Luke xxii. 19): see exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 454. 2. II, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 22.7. The Apostle appeals to the conversion of the Corinthians (tiv alorw aitay, Theod.), and the kavxnots which he has and holds within him on this very account, as a plain testimony to the truth of the @dvaros kaé- nuepwés (Theoph.). The & Xpior@ «.7.A. marks, as usually, the blessed sphere in which he possesses and holds the kavxnois; see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and on Eph. ii. 6, iv. 1. Tt XV. 30,.°39,: 32: 311 » > a > a a , (Muy > ‘ exo ev Xpiotw Inoov Tw Kupio nov. ei kata 32 » > , > > , , ‘ avOpwrov eOnpipdynoa ev “Edéow, ti prow 7d Odehos; El vexpol ovK eyelpovTa, Pdywpev Kal The reading of Steph. 3, juerépay, has (if we except A) practically no support. 32. kata GvOpwmov) ‘after the manner of men ;’ under the ordi- nary circumstances in which men Onpiopaxodow (*humanitus, humano auctoramento, spe vite presentis duntaxat,’ Beng.; comp. Copt. ‘in humanitate ’), and so, not under any higher principle; ‘ non divino aliquo impulsu, neque in Deum respiciens, sed vel glorid vel temeritate actus, ceterisve ejusmodi causis adductus quarum studio homines in ista peri- cula precipites ruunt,’ Beza. The clause is put prominently forward and designed to enhance the force of the question: ‘if I thus, and under no higher principle, went through all these dangers, what is the profit that I get?’ tovde Tov Kivdvvov Kapwév; Theod. Of the various interpretations this clause has received, the above is the only one that appears to be in ac- cordance with the language and the context. On the formula xara &vOpw- mov (which must always be explained from the context), see reff. in notes on ch. iii. 3. €6npropaxynoa év "Edéow) ‘was a fighter with wild beasts at Ephesus ;’ scarcely, ‘ad bestias pugnavi,’ Vulg., or ‘cum bestiis pugnavi,’ Ireneus (v. 13), but simply, in accordance with the mean- ing of compound words of this nature, ‘acted the part of a @npioudxos; comp. Diod. Hist. m1. 43, mpbs &s [ray AcdyTwy K.T.A. wyéAas] avayKd- tlya exw Covrat Onpiomaxeiy brép Opeuudrwr: Artemed. Oneirocr. 11. 54, @npiouaxeiv méevntt ayabdv. That the word is not to be taken in a literal sense, whether in reference to being cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre (‘ pro- jectus sum feris,’ Syr.; see Theod., and comp. Ignat. Rom. cap. 5), or having fought with them as an armed gladiator (‘ bestiarius’), but is to be taken in a metaphorical sense (td mpbs Tods “Iovdalous oxeiyv, (@cum.; comp. Tertull. de Reswrr. cap. 48), seems now generally main- tained by the best interpreters, it being highly improbable that such a signal danger would have been left unnoticed by St Luke, esp. if the Roman citizenship of the Apostle had failed to protect him. What, however, incident or circumstances are here referred to is by no means clear. Theophylact and others refer to the uproar mentioned Acts xix. 23 sqq.; but it is doubtful whether the Epistle was not prior to it (con- trast ch. xvi. 8, 9, and Acts xx. 1), and also whether the Apostle was then in any special and personal danger. We regard, then, the refer- ence as either to some unrecorded incident, or to the state of antagon- ism with @npia, in the person of human opponents, into which the Apostle was placed by his own earnestness and devotion. On this use of the aorist, see Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 5. Tt ot Td SdhedoS]} ‘What is the profit to me?’ the profit answering to such a perilous condition; the expression ti 1d bpeAos occurs James il. 14, 16. el vexpol ovxK éyetpovrat is rightly referred by Chrys., Theoph., and many modern editors and expositors to what follows rather than to what precedes. There is an obvious diffi- culty in associating a second con- ditional member to a short sentence that commences with one; and there 312 _TPO2 KOPINSIOY> TPT: 33 miwper, avpiov yap amobvycKopev. pi) wravacbe: 34 Pbcipovew On xpnora dpidriar KaKal. 33. xpnord] So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. is a clear force in the isolated inter- rogative (comp. ver. 29) which speaks strongly for the punctuation adopted in the text; so Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort. On the ef od, see notes on ch. vii. 9, and for a sermon on this text (in two parts), Bp Hall, Works, Vol. v. p. 290 sqq. Oxf. (1837). oddywowev «.t.A.] The words are a citation from the Septuagint version of Isaiah xxii. 13, and, as Chrysostom notices, are probably introduced in the language of the prophet as thus marking with deeper solemnity the ethical result of disbelief in the resurrection. Similar sentiments are expressed in Wisdom il. I sqq.; see also two sermons on these words by Bp Taylor, Works, Vol. v. p. 217 sqq. (ed. Heber). 33- pa wAavaaGe] ‘Be not de- ceived ;’ ‘do not be led astray into these utterly immoral, though pos- sibly natural, attitudes of thought.’ The form mAavace is not middle (‘ne errate,’ Beza, Beng.), but, as apparently always in this form- ula, passive (‘nolite seduci,’ Vulg., Arm.) : see notes on ch. vi. 9. o0cipovovyv k.7.A.] ‘evil convpanion- ships corrupt good dispositions :’ justification of the foregoing warn- ing; but whether in the form of a citation from Menander (Tertull. ad Uxor. 1. 8, Jerome in Gal. 1v., Tit. 1.; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 1. 16, ascribes it to Euripides), or, more probably (on account of the non- metrical xpnord), as a current proverb which Menander had also made use of (he certainly alluded to another proverb in the same play; see Ailian, Hist. An. x11. 10), cannot Exvy arte The form xphae’ positively be decided. The words occur in the play bearing the title of Thais: see Meineke, Fragm. Comic. Gree. Vol. tv. p. 132. The familiar word 70s (‘ indoles, morum quedam proprietas,’ Quintil. Inst. vi. 2) is not found elsewhere in the N. T.: on its meaning, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 2. 2, p. 6 sq. (Transl.). In the plural, 767 commonly sig- nify ‘ mores,’ the canon of Phrynicus being, xpnoTds Ta On TAnNOuy- TiK@S puAGTTOU* of yap SéKwot EviKas gacl xpnords TO 80s, but where the reference is to several persons the rule does not appear to apply: see Rutherford, Phrynicus, p. 468. In the present case the meaning ‘dispositions,’ ‘characters,’ seems best to harmonize with the context ; comp. Syr.‘mentes benignas;’ Copt., ‘corda bona:’ so also appy. Auth. The term é6ytACar must clearly not be restricted to ‘ colloquia,’ Vulg., Goth., Copt., or ‘ narrationes,’ Syr. It points rather to communications in the more general form of inter- course (‘commercia,’ Beza) or com- panionship ; scil. ‘ congressus mali,’ Tertull. (ad Uxor.1.8). The Apostle uses the words as warning his con- verts against intercourse with men who denied such a fundamental truth as that of the resurrection; comp. ch. v. 9, and on the influence of companionships, see Rothe, Theol. Eth. § 376, Vol. 1. p. 361 sq., § 1132, Vol. v. p. 226 (ed. 2). On the term xpnords, as marking a certain sweetness (comp. Syr.) of character as well as goodness, comp. notes on Gal. v. 22. 34. exvyiware Sixatws] ‘ Awake to soberness righteously ;’ as mpds EV 1733;7 54> 35 313 Suxaiws Kal por) dmwaptaveres ayrwolav yap Ocod TwWes Exovoivs Tpds evtpoTy vu ahd. If it be asked, how are the dead raised, "Adda €pet tis Ids éyetpovtas ot 35 nature animate and inanimate gives the answer; and, still more, Scripture. (Lachm., Rec.) really rests scarcely on any authority, but was adopted to maintain a metrical form of the citation. 34. Aad@] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westec. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., Aéyw. 35. 4aAAd] So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on appy. sufficient authority, peOvovras Kal pawvouevous, Chrys. Vivid appeal (observe the aorist) to men who had become besotted with false speculation and error. The Apostle bids them at once éxv}dew, rise out of their spiritually drunken sleep (‘de ebriis dicitur, qui in somno demum sunt sobrii,’ Steph. Thes. s. ¥.; comp. I Sam. xxv. 37), and that diafws,—in a rightful manner, with the righteous resolve of breaking with the past, and of not continuing (comp. Winer, G7. § 43. 2) in the sinfulness which is the fatal associate of unbelief; é- TEvOEY aUTOIs TA OMEpuaTa TIS amioTlas, Chrys. In the verb éxv7#pew (comp. avavnpev, 2 Tim. ii. 26) the two ideas of awakening, and that, out of the stupor of drunkenness, are both to be recognized: comp. Lyne. ap. Athen. rv. p. 130 B, kapnBapotrytes bro THs meOns... mavtes ekevijpouer. Consequently ‘ evigilate,’ Vulg., Copt. (comp. Syr., ‘ excitate corda vestra ’), on the one side, and ‘ sobrii estote,’ Clarom., on the other, are each scarcely sufficient. In Goth. and Arm. the idea is more of resipiscence, and coming back to good sense: comp. Plutarch, Demosth. cap. 20, where’it is said of Philip (after the battle of Chwronea, éxvjWas 5é kal Th péyebos Tov mepiardvtos avTov On the de- rivation, see the notes on 2 Tim. TEs Se «.7.A.] ‘ for some have an ignorance ayavos év v@ AaBayv. adyvwclay yap of God;’ have it and hold it,—the expression adyvwolay éxew being studiously chosen as stronger than ayvoeiy or ovK eidévat, The doubts and disbelief of these twes (see notes on yer. 12) were due, if not wholly, yet in great measure, to their utter want of knowledge of God whether in regard of His nature, His power (Chrys.; comp. Matth. Xxll. 29), or His justice (Theod.). Agnosticism was the root of the evil. ampds évtpomiv «.7.A.] ‘I speak thus to yow to move you to shame;’ ‘ut pudore afficiamini loquor,’ Ath.; the pds indicating the ethical direction and purpose of the Acdeiv (comp. notes on ch. x. 11, and on Col. iv. 5), and the dat. duty, as in ch. vi. 9 (contrast ch. x. 11, where the construction is different), being connected with the verb, according to the prevailing usage in St Paul’s Epp. Where the prep. is used, as in 1 Thess. ii. 2, the expression is designedly more formal and significant: compare Winer, Gr. § 31.5. For the Apostle to say that some among them had an ayvwoiay Ocod, was pds évtporhy indeed; addpa Chrys. ab’tav KubhWaro, 35-49. The manner of the resur- rection, and the nature of the resur- rection-body: illustrative and con- jirmatory analogies. 35. “AAAG €pet tis] ‘But some one will say:’ 314 , , A , 36 vexpot, tmoiw dé cdpare / cal 37 omelpeas ov Cworroretrat oTrEl pels, OV TO THpa. TO yevnoopevov o7eEipers, AAA TIPOS KOPIN@IOYS TWPOTH. » » ‘ EpyovTar; adpwv, ov aN ‘ > / ~ eav pn amoldavy Kal Qs OF O> due regard being had to the prevailing usage in the older mss.: Lachm., Rec., aan’. 36. uppwrv] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., appov. introduction, by means of the words of a supposed objection (compare Biumlein, Partik. p. 13 sq.), to the second portion of the great argu- ment,—/the manner of the resurrec- tion, and, more particularly, the nature of the future body.) The fact of the resurrection was doubted be- cause the manner of it, and particu- larly the roidérns of the resurrection- body, seemed inconceivable and in- explicable: ti@no. dvd Tas eramoph- Gels, TOD TpdmOV THs avactdcews, Kal THs ToudTATOS TOV GwudTwy, Chrys. ; comp. Theod. pate Epxovrar] ‘and with what kind of body do they come,’ —7@ arorAwddtt } évrépy tt; Chrys.; the 5¢reitera- ting, in a more precise and particu- lar form, the more general difficulty expressed in the first question: see Kiihner, Gr. § 531. 4.a, comp. Klotz, Devarius, Vol. m. p. 362. In the €pxovra the idea is that of an entry into the realm of the living. Ac- cording to Bengel, ‘ potius venire quam redire dicuntur, propter sum- mam illam novitatem.’ [he pre- sent here is not used in a temporal, so much as a logical sense—‘do they come,’ according to the teach- ing set forth; the matter is, so to say, here brought on the scene: see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. a, Kihner, Gr. § 382. 6. 36. a&dpov] ‘ Foolish one!’ sud- den exclamation, called out by the nature of the difficulty involved in the second question; the assump- trotw S& oé- tion of the objector being that the risen body must be numerically identical with the buried body. On this use of the nominative, in which an ellipse of the auxiliary is to be assumed, and its distinction from a vocative, see Kiihner, Gr. § 356, Winer, Gr. § 29. 2. ov 6 omretpers | ‘what thow sowest;’ the ov being, as its position shows, distinctly emphatic, and bringing the argument into the very sphere of what might be the act of the ob- jector,—‘ in the case of any seed that you the objector sow, how fares it?’ Bengel (‘tute, homuncio;’ comp. Chrys.) seems here to place the ob proleptically in contrast with the 6 @cds (ver. 38): the above explana- tion, however, seems more simple; ‘disce ex rebus, tibi per experientiam notis,’ Estius. ov Lwotrotei- tat) ‘is not quickened,’ ‘has not the principle of life within it called out into operative energy ; passive ; mddw Tov Ocod Thy Sivayw wapadap- Bivwy, Chrys. The word is chosen, like the amoGdvn below, to keep up the close analogy of the circum- stances of the sown seed and the buried body: see Chrysostom in loc. The casting in of the seed answers to the burial of the body (rpémov tua Tap Kadvmre:s, Phot.) ; the amrobaveiv of the seed, to the passage of the body into corruption: ‘ putrefactio rei, licet inanimate, mors quedam ejus est,’ Estius ; see John xii. 24. 37. Kal & otrefpers] ‘and that XV. 36, 37, 38, 39. 315 yupvov KoKKov ei TUXOL oiToOV 7) TWos TAY houTY: 6 38 S€ Ocds didwow aito copa Kalas HO noe, Kal ExdoT@ Tov OTEpLaTwV LOioy TOpa. ov Taca Gap 39 48. didwow arg) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., adr@ di5wor. The same critical editions omit 7d before Y5:ov, on authority still more distinct: Rec. inserts 7d. which thow sowest;’ reiteration of the words just preceding to keep the attention fixed to this 8 ome/peis, and to what is to be said of it. The grammatical structure is, however, not carried through, but changed for the sake of still keeping the omelpes (in lieu of a more structurally correct, but less vivid, form of words) in what follows. For exx. of this very intelligible break in construc- tion (Matth. xii. 36, Luke, xxi. 39, 1 John ii. 24, 27, al.), see Winer, Gr. 63.2. d. Meyer cites Matth. vii. 24, but the true reading is éduow@joera. In what follows, the céyua Td yevn- oduevoy (‘quod futwrum est, non quid, sed quale monstrare,’ Est.) is the analogue of the resurrection- body. The objector’s argument was, Etepoy caua miner, kal [according to the Apostle’s teaching] €repoy c&ua avicrarat, mas obv avaoraots ay ein; Chrys. Nature gives an illustrative answer; mimrew wey eis yy TO coua old Twa KéKkov, ovK OUTWS avacTHobuE- voy, Cyril ap. Cram. Cat. yupvov KdéKKkov «.7.A.] ‘a naked grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some one of the other seeds ;’ a grain not yet clothed with the body which shall be: comp. 2 Cor. v. 3. On the ei réxo (Syr. omits, interpola- ting, however, ‘aut hordei’), see notes on ch. xiv. 9. The natural supplement to Aoiway is omepuatrwv (Syr., Copt., Arm.), as obviously suggested by the context and also expressed in the following verse, ExdoTw Tay oTEpudTwr. 38. 8 8€ Ocds «.7.A.] ‘ but God giveth it a body, according as it pleased Him:’ the ever recurring divine act contrasted with the hu- man sowing; the Kalas 70éAncev pointing back to the time when at His bidding the earth brought forth the ‘herb yielding seed after his kind’ (Gen i. 12), and when each seed and the body into which it was to develop were bound by crea- tive wisdom in enduring organic unity. kal éxdot@ x.7-A.] ‘and (further) to each seed a body of its own ;’ the nat having here its fullest force and adding a further detail to what has been already specified. On this use of kal, see notes on ch. iii. 5, and on Phil. iv. 12. The conclusion from the whole is irresistible, and briefly but clearly expressed by Severian (Cram. Cat.) ; tpa 6 TG Kbknw Sedwxas thy orep- parikhy Sivauiy, CSwKkev Kal Tois iue- Tépois chuact Thy THs dvaoTdcews isxuy. 39. od waca oapé x.7.A.] ‘ All flesh is not the same flesh:’ ‘hoc universaliter mnegat,’ Beng.; the negative being put forward strongly and emphatically; comp. notes on Gal. ii. 16, where, however, the structure is more distinctly Hebra- istic. In this and the following verses the Apostle states the broad natural fact, viz. the variety of or- ganization manifested by practi- cally the same general substance, whether in the animate or inanimate world, as illustrating the diversity 316 TIPO KOPINGIOY2 TIPOTH. f abt) odpé, adda adn pev dvOpdrwv, addy Se. oap& xKtnvav, adn S€ oap€ atnvav, addy Se > , \ , > , ‘ , ay 40 iy Ovwv. KaL OWULATA ETOUPAVLA, KAL OWULATA E€7TL- > a £ / \ e a > , 5 / « “4 yera* adda érépa pev 7) TOV erouvpaviwy dd€a, éETépa 39. BAAD Lev avOpdrwy] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., AAn pév capt avOpérwr. order xtnvGvy . ..™THv@v... The ix6dwv is adopted by all the above edd., on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., nrnvev.. > , ~ . (xOvev ,.. TTHVaY. The above also add cdpé after the second 4AdAy 6bé, on nearly the same authority: Rec. omits odpé. that must be expected to exist be- tween the same body when in its earthly state, and when its in spiri- tual state: ‘quicquid diversitatis cernimus in quaque specie quoddam est resurrectionis preludium,’ Calvy. To make ov maoa the predicate on account of a supposed difficulty in harmonizing this passage with 2 Cor. v. 4 (Edwards) is structurally improbable, and exegetically harsh. The Apostle is simply diluting the force of a commonplace objection (that the resurrection-body is ex concesso different from the buried body) by some illustrations from the natural world. KTnvev] ‘of cattle:’ not necessarily ‘jumen- torum ’ (compare Clarom.; and see Luke x. 34, Acts xxiii. 24), but sim- ply ‘pecorum’ (Vulg.; see Rev. xviii. 13),—‘ of cattle,’ whether for use as ‘jumenta,’ or for any other purpose. The wider rendering ‘animalium’ (Arm., compare Syr., th.), ‘ quad- rupedes omnes’ (Beng.), does not seem lexically exact. Had this been intended, the word retpdroda (Rom. i. 23) would more likely have been used. 40. Kal odépata émovpdvia]) ‘ Bodies also heavenly there are,’ i.e. ‘bodies which are in, or belong to, the ovpavol,’ comp. Copt., th. What céuara are here referred to is not perfectly clear. The somewhat restricted use of the word (céyara), especially in this passage, does not seem in harmony with that expan- sion of it which would be involved in the expression ‘ heavenly bodies,’ in the sense of sun, moon, and stars (Severian, Beng., Hofm.), but would appear rather to limit our conception to bodily organizations found in the ovpavois; just as point to organizations found upon the earth. We thus seem referred to angels, and to all the dwellers év tots émoupavios (Eph. ili. 10, Vi. 12) ; there being nothing in Scripture to preclude our thus assigning to them cépata, but, on the contrary, many allusions that seem to warrant it. The early writers are by no means agreed in denying cduara to the holy angels; see Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. 1. pp. 36, 37. The patristic ex- positors (with the exception of Severian) refer the terms to the dixatoc. on the one hand, and the auaptwrot on the other, but with very little probability: the distine- tions here under consideration are physical rather than ethical. GAAG éEtépa x.7.A.] ‘ howbeit the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another kind ;’ the stronger aAAa@ (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) introducing the statement of the chara enliven Ve 4G, ats 4a 317 Sé 4) Tay emiyelwv. aAAyn Sd€a HAlov, Kat addy Soa 41 cedyrys, Kat adn dda aorépwv: dorip yap aatépos Suadépa ev Sd€p. ovTws Kat ) dvdotacis 42 TOV VvEKpaOv. diversity of the 5éf. On the dis- tinction between €repos (‘non tantum alium sed diversum significat,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 155), see notes on Gal. i. 6. The glory that surrounds the one is widely different from that which surrounds the other. 41. GAAn 86a x.7.A.] § There is one glory of the swn;’ transition, suggested by the last comment, to the distinctive manifestations of another, and very different, class of éroupdvia, the Apostle’s object throughout being to press home the distinctions that everywhere exist, and so, the reasonableness of the truth that, the nature of the resur- rection-body is widely different from that of the ca@ua Tis tamewvdoews quay (Phil. iii. 21). dotip yap x...) ‘for star differs from star in glory.’ The studiously chosen plural aorépwy, as marking distinctions between star and star, is further elucidated by the state- ment that there is a d:amopa in the défa which any observant eye can recognize. That Siapeper is here ‘differt’ (Vulg., Clarom.), and not ‘prestat’ (Syr., Copt., Arm., Zth.), seems clear from the whole tenor of the present context, in which the prominent idea is the difference of the various bodies to which the Apostle is here alluding, not the ex- cellence of any one over another. This further idea comes out later. The prep. év is used with dédta (it might have been omitted) as mark- ing more distinctly the particular element in which the d:a@opa is to be recognized. LEstius, following the omeipetar ev Oopad, eyeiperar év patristic expositors, refers this clause to the ‘magna diversitas glorim’ that there will be among the saints hereafter. Such a ‘ diversitas’ there may be, but it is not here alluded to. 42. otitws Kal x.7.A.] ‘ So also is the resurrection of the dead ;’ thus, —as regards the difference between the body that now is and the resur- rection-body; the «al marking the correspondence of the resurrection of the dead, in the particular just specified, with the tenor of the illustrations in the six preceding verses. On this use of kal, see notes on 2 Thess. ii. 11. ome(petar év O0pa x.7.A.] ‘It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in incorruption.’ The 3rd. pers. singular passive may be here used imperson- ally (‘the sowing is évy 6op@, the raising up is évy ap@apocia: comp. Winer, Gr. § 58. 9. b), but is more naturally to be connected with a latent nominative céua (compare Theoph.), more clearly to be traced in ver. 44, but suggested by the whole tenor of the passage. The sowing here referred to, as Chrys. rightly observes, is not thy yéveow jay Thy ev whrpa, but thy taphy thy év 77 yi, and the word is studiously chosen (‘verbum amcenissimum pro sepulturd,’ Beng.) as more closely harmonizing with the leading illus- tration, ver. 36 sq. The particular expression, however, év @@opa (‘in the state or sphere,’ as it were, of $opa) seems specially chosen so as in some measure (see notes on the following verse) to look backward, and to refer, not only and exclusively 318 IPOS KOPINCIOYS TIPOTH. s > > / z J , 43 adOapoia: ometpera &v atysia, eyeiperar ev dy" / / , , 44 ome(perar ev doOeveia, eyeiperar ev Suvapen o7met- perar copa Woyikdr, €yelpeTar oGpa TvEvparTiKdr. el €otw copa WuyiKdy, EoTW Kal TVEvpmaTLKOD. 44. €l torw...%orw kal mvevparixdy] So all the five edd., with very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., €or... kal €or oGua mvevparixdy. to the epoch of the dissolution of the «dua, but also to the whole prior state to which this didAvois is the conclusion. The same sort of allu- sion to the whole past as well as to the concluding scene seems to be maintained in the two clauses that follow. 43. év a&tipta] ‘in dishonour ; not simply with reference to the ‘nuditas’ (Beng.) and undeveloped state (ver. 37), but to the state of pOopa above specified. This aripia has marked many of the aspects of life, and now finally culminates in the 7d akaddés (Cyril) connected with sepulture, and, as De Quincey has termed it, ‘the dishonours of the grave:’ TL yap vexpov ary.m@repor ; Theoph. év GoGeveia} ‘17 weakness,’ scil. in a powerless state : ti yap Tod ixGpos exelvov 7) Tis Kévews dgQevéotepov; Theod. As power is naturally associated with life, so powerlessness is equally appropri- ately connected with the state of death and the body that has passed into it. The hopeless weakness of the dead (vextwoy duevnva kdpnya, Hom. Od. x. 521) was a thought that often presented itself; comp. Isaiah xiv. 10, Psalm cxv. 17, al. It may be here observed that the prevailing use of the term to mark the weakness of man while liy- rather than when dead, has led many expositors to fall back upon a reference of omelperat in each clause to the beginning, rather than to the close, of man’s existence, ng, and to explain p@opa and drip‘a ac- cordingly. It seems, however, exege- tically impossible here to dissociate the omeipera: from the idea of burial (consider ver. 37): we retain it therefore, and see in each clause a primary reference to the grave; though, from the form of the expres- sions év 0op& k.7.A., a secondary and, as it were, retrospective allusion to the whole prior state may be in- tended to be included. év Suvdper] ‘in power,’ 2.e., ‘in a state or condition of power.’ This state (td evaOeveés, Cyril), ‘in quo perfectus sit vigor omnium potentiarum atque membrorum’ (Estius), is what we almost instinctively associate with the resurrection-body. According to Aquinas itis the ‘ dos agilitatis.’ 44. cdpa WoxiKdy] ‘a natural (psychical) body ;’ ‘ corpus animale,’ Vulg.; a body in which the Wux7 is the predominating potency (7d tro Ths Wuxns KuBepyduevoy, Theod.), and by which the vx comes into relation with the sensuous and ma- terial: see notes on ch. ii. 14. The Apostle having specified some of the characteristic and sharply con- trasted qualities of the sown body and the raised body, now gathers up in two comprehensive definitions the fundamental qualitative differ- ence. The doubters asked roi» od- part €pxovtat: the answer is given in this and the following clause in the most clear and generic form. On the capability of death in the case of a body as described in this XV. 43, 44, 45. 319 LY ‘ , ’ , 3 a ¥ -ovTws Kal yéypamtar ‘Eyévero 6 patos avOpwros 45 ’ ‘ > \ “ c ¥” , ‘ > Ada eis Wuyjv looav: 6 eayaros 'Adap eis verse, see Miiller, Doctrine of Sin, Iv. 2, Vol. m. p. 323 sq. (Transl.). cpa mvevpatixéy] ‘a spiritual body ;? a body in which the mvevua of man, the element in which the Holy Spirit vouchsafes to operate (Rom. viii. 16), is the predominating influence; 7d tad rod mvetuaros oixovovjuevov, Theod. There is here no reference to the quasi-physical nature of the body (kovpdrepoy kar Aerrérepov, Chrys. 2): the reference is simply to the predominating element. On the term mvevuartixds, see notes on ch. ii. 15, and on the mvevua in man, Destiny of Creature, Serm. v., and reff. in notes on Phil. i. 27, and on 1 Thess. v. 23. el €otiv x.t.A.] ‘If there exists a natural body, there exists also a spiritual (body):’ the existence of the one forms a logical presumption for the existence of the other. The emphasis, as the position of the word indicates, rests in each clause on the éorw: if there does plainly exist a body in which, as all ex- perience shows, the Yvx predomin- ates, and if, as has already been shown by various analogies, we must expect a fundamental differ- ence between this present body and 7d caua 7d yevnodpuevov, the exist- ence of a body in which the con- trasted principle, the rvetua, will be the predominating influence seems to follow as a necessary inference. The inference the Apostle proceeds to confirm by Scripture. 45. otTws Kal ‘Thus also it is written ; cordance with the tenor of the above inference,—-the «al further marking the correspondence between the inferential statements of verse yeypatrat | ? in ac- 44 with the citation and the clause that follows it: comp. notes on ver. 42. The passage cited is from Gen. ii. 7 (LXX), kal éeyévero kvOpwros eis Wuxhv (aoa, the 6 mpa@ros and ’Addu being inserted to make its contrast with the clause appended by the Apostle more clear and appreciable. That the second member is a part of any citation, or in any way in- tended to be regarded as such, cannot possibly be maintained. The Scriptural yéyparra: terminates with (@oav, but, as expanded by the Apostle, suggests and justifies what follows, the ‘ first Adam’ suggest- ing the reference to the ‘last Adam,’ and the Yuxiv (ecar calling out the doubly antithetical rvetua (worooidr: see Theod. in loc. On the eis of ‘destination,’ here pressed into purely Hebraistic service, see Winer, Gr. § 32. 4. b. Wuxtv Cocav] ‘a living sowl;’ not ‘animal vivens,’ Beza, but ‘anima vivens,’ Vulg.,—a living soul-endued being ; the neshdma of God (Gen. ii. 7) having converted the as yet dead clay into a living and breathing individual, having a rational soul and organized body. That man did not then receive merely this prin- ciple of life, but did also receive the grace of the Spirit, is well set forth by Bull, in his dissertation ‘On the State of Man before the Fall,’ Works, Vol. m. p. 90 sqq. (Oxf. 1827); comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 78, p. 152 (Transl.): this truth, however, is not referred to in the present passage. 6 écxatos "ASday) ‘the last Adam,’ ‘ the last first-man (Hofm.), the antitypical head of the new creation,—Chvrist: see Rom. y. 14. The Apostle here 320 MPOS KOPINSIOY2 TIPOTH. ‘ 46 rvedpa Cworro.ovy. add’ ob TpOTov TO TVvEvpaTLKOY 47 GANG TO WuyxiKdy, ETELTA TO TVEYPATLKOV. O TPOTOS speaks of Christ as the ‘last ’ rather than the ‘second’ Adam (comp. ver. 47), 80 as to preserve in each par- ticular the sharpest form of anti- thesis. He was truly éoxatos; ‘post eum nemo alius in alterutro genere princeps,’ Est.: comp. Rev. i. 8 (the more apposite words in ver. 11, Rec., are not genuine}. arvedja Cwoto.ody] ‘a quickening or life-giving spirit;’ not merely (av but worowty: the essential characteristic of the Spirit is to impart life; &pa tod mvedparos 70d woraeciv, Chrys. The (wi here re- ferred to must be not generally 7 (wh h aidvios (Theod.), but, more particularly, in accordance with the whole context, the resurrection-life : comp. John y. 21, 28, 29, Phil. iii. 21. The real difficulty connected with the clause is in regard of the epoch when Christ thus became a avenua (worowvv. The reference to the incarnation (Severian, referring to Matt. i. 20) is plausible; but, on the whole, Estius seems right in rejecting it in favour of the epoch of the resurrection. It was through and by the resurrection that Christ When He breathed on His disciples and said AdBere Ivedua “Ayioy (John xx. 22; contrast ch. vii. 39), we feel that the transition had begun. After the resurrection the blessed body of the Lord appears to have received new properties and powers (comp. Luke xxiv. 16, 31, John xx. 19) and even glories (consider Matt. XXVili. 17, m™pocexvynoav), and to have passed in holy mystery more and more into the mvevuarikdy, until, at the ascension, the now wholly spiritual body,—‘the last éyéveo cis veda (woTroLody. particle of earthliness left to this world’s gravitation ’ (Smyth),— rose upward to the right hand of God (Mark xvi. 19): see Dorner, Chr. Doctr.§ 126, Vol. 1v. p. 139 (Transl.), and Newman Smyth, Old Faiths, ch. vit. p. 358 sqq. 46. GAN od TpdTov «.7.A.] ‘ Howbeit the spiritual is not first, but the natural :’ statement of the general principle which dominates the whole, the adda introducing, in the form of a general contrast with the foregoing details, the broad statement, and breaking off further reference to the particulars of ver. 45: see the excellent remarks, on this particle, of Biumlein, Partik. § 5 sqq., and § 8, p. 15. The primary idea of the particle (‘ aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz) is fully preserved, but the contrast involved is less sharply marked than in the more ordinary uses of the particle: comp. Kiihner, Gres 5o5-) 0: The 7d mvev- patikoy is thus, in harmony with the generalizing character of the verse, simply substantival, and with no reference to an understood céuea: see Winer, Gr. § 64. 5. On the profound questions connected with man’s development in reference to creative design, see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 480, Vol. ut. p. 47 sq. (ed. 2). 47. 6 mwpGrog x.-7-A.] Illustration of the foregoing general principle, mpa@tos and devrepos being not merely enumerative, but standing in dis- tinct contrast. The €oxatos of ver. 45 is not adopted here, as it would be less in harmony with the €re:ra of ver. 46 than the more natural, though here equally contrasted, XV. 46, 47, 48, 49. 321 » 6 > a - Ff c 5 , »¥ 0 > avOpwros ex ys xolkds, 6 Sedrepos avOpwros && ovpavod. olos 6 yoiKds, ToLOVTOL Kal of yolKol, Kal olos 48 O érouparios, ToLovTOL Kal OL ETovpariot* Kal KaOds 49 47. 4 Sevrepos &vOpwros e& ovdpavod) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. inserts 6 Kupws after &v@pwros. devrepos. ék yiis xotkdés] ‘of earth, earthy ;’ the é« ys mark- ing whence man was derived, and the xoikds (Gen. ii. 7, xodv AaBav amd THs 77s) the matter or substance (‘pulvereus,’ Syr., ‘muldeins,’ Goth.) the ‘ fusilis terra’ (Steph. Thesaur. s. v. xovs), of which he was made. The omission of the article with y7 and with otpayds (neither without precedent, esp. with prepositions, Winer, Gr.§ 19. 1) is due perhaps to the desire to keep the two substan- tives in sharp contrast,—‘ earth’ and ‘ heaven ’), and, by abbreviating, practically to make the clauses more adjectival in character: compare Ecclus. xl. 11, mavra dca amd yijs, eis yiv avactpepe. eg ovpavod] ‘of heaven;’ ‘e ceelo,’ Beza, rather than ‘ de celo,’ Vulg.,— as the clause corresponds to the éx yns above, and marks alike the divine origin (‘ utpote natus ex Deo,’ Est.) and the heavenly nature of the devtepos GvOpwros. The term ovpa- vos is thus here used, not so much in a local as in a qualitative sense, placing the celestial nature of the second Adam (uetdpotos bAos Kal ovpdvios, Phot.), in contrast with the earthly origin and earthy substance of the first. That our blessed Lord had a c@ua xoixiy like other men (see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, tv. 2, Vol. m. p. 326, Transl.) is indisput- able, but that in His blessed earthly body there was ever a concealed heavenly glory (Matth. xvii. 2 sq., Mark ix. 2 sq.; see Miiller, J. c. p- 329), which after His resurrection became fully disclosed (see notes on ver. 44) is equally indisputable. The contrast here, however, between the first man and the Second Man is simply broad and general (see Calv. in loc.), and prepares for the con- trasts that follow. 48. ofos & xoikds x.7.A.] ‘As is the earthy, such also are they that are earthy ;’ application of the fore- going to the contrast between the nature and condition of the present body, and that of the resurrection- body ; ‘as is the earthy first man, in regard of his bodily substance, so also are his descendants, in regard of their bodily substance.’ Bothare alike xoikol; both have alike a body formed out of dust, and (‘ ratione sue materie,’ Est.) resolvable into dust agdin. The ‘ potuit non mori’ of the first Adam and his descen- dants (see Dorner, Christian Doctr. § 39. 4, Vol. 1. p. 71, Transl.), and the ‘natural immortality’ which the tree of life would have supplied to him and to them if they had remained in innocence (see Bp. Bull’s discourse ‘On the State of Man before the Fall,’ Hngl. Theol. Works, p. 446 sq. Oxf. 1844; comp. Miller, Doctr. of Sin, 1v. 2, Vol. m. p- 325, Transl.), is not here touched upon: the Apostle is here simply speaking of the body in regard of its substance and material. kal olog 5 étrovpdviog x.7.A.] ‘and as is the heavenly such also are they that are heavenly :’ ‘as is the ascended Lord, He that sits év Tois érovpavios (Eph, ii. 20), so also y $32. IPOS KOPINGIOYS TPOTH. \ lal oo wn Q epopécapey THY EiKdVa TOD XOLKOV, Popécomey Kat lal , THY ElKOVa TOU eTOUpavlov. Mortal must become la , > Y de G4 A 50 Tovto dé ppt, adehpoi, OTL oap immortal, and cor- ruptible, incorruptible. The victory over death will then, thanks be to God, be complete : so be steadfast. 49. popécouev] So Rec., Rev. (with marg.). The reading here presents very great difficulty. It isimpossible to deny that the subj. popéowney (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort) is supported by very greatly preponderating authority. At the same time it seems equally impossible to deny that not only the context, and the whole tenor of the argument (throughout of a physiological rather than of an ethical character), are in favour of the future, but further, that the preceptive or hortative subjunctive is here singularly out of place and unlooked for. In this great difficulty, and this conflict between external authority and internal probability, we seem reluctantly forced to believe that we have here a very early instance of itacism, and that we may be justified in reading the future, with B; a few mss.; Arm., Aith.; some little patristic testimony, and a distinct statement of Theodoret. A somewhat similar difference of reading occurs in James iv. 15, but there the balance of external authority is very different. Winer, Gr. § 41. 4. 0. are they that, raised by the power of His resurrection, become the citizens of the ‘IepovoaAym émov- pdvios (Heb. xii. 22), and sit with Him éy rots érovpaviois, not in spirit only (comp. Eph. ii. 6), but in local actuality.’ The spiritual body is to be otvpmoppos TG chuart THs S5dkéns avrod (Phil. iii. 20). Having thus stated the general principle,—the correlation, in regard of corporeal nature, of the 6 xoixds and the of xoixol, and of the 6 éemovpdyios and the of érovpdyiot,—the Apostle pro- ceeds to apply the statement to him- self and to his readers. 49. Kal édopéoapmev x.t.A.] ‘And as we bore the image of the earthy ;’ the aorist referring to the past mortal life, which is con- templated, as it were, in retrospect, and at the epoch of the transition from the earthy to the heavenly: see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. a, note. In this and many similar cases the idiom of our language suggests the use either of a present or perfect : the shade of thought, however, Kabas On this latter passage, see which the Greek aorist carries with it, is in each case obscured: see Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 14, and notes on Phit.i. 29. The meaning of popety as distinguished from that of pépeuv,— the latter denoting ‘actionem sim- plicem et transitoriam,’ the former, ‘actionis ejusdem continuationem,’ —is commented on, and illustrated by, Lobeck, Phryn.p.585, andis fully maintained in the N. T.: see Matth. xi. 8, John xix. 5, Rom. xii. 4, James ii. 3. We might here not in- appropriately translate, ‘wore the image’ (compare 2 Cor. v. 2 sq.): so Syr., Aith., Arm. The eixay Tov xoikod (‘imago terreni Adam,’ Est.), as the context clearly indi- cates, is the cGua Wuxirdy ; the eikwy Tov eroupavtov (‘imago hominis ccel- estis, scilicet Christi,’ Est.), the caua mvevmatiKdy: COMP. Ver. 44. 50-58. The necessity of the final change, and the triwmph of final victory : concluding exhortation. 50. Totro 8€ dnp] ‘Now this I say :’ transition to the concluding XV..§0, 51. 323 kat aluwa Baorreiav Ocod Kypovopnjaa ov duva- Tat, ovde % POopa tiv adOapatay Kdypovopel. iSod pvatypiov dpiv héyw* wavtes od KoysNOnod- 51 50. dévarat] So Tisch., Treg., Westc.and Hort, on external authority which, with the internal probability of a grammatical correction, apparently pre- ponderates : Rec., Lachm., Rev., Sivayrat. 51. mdyres ov] The reading in this important passage presents some difficulties. The best critical opinions, however, seem now clearly settling portion of the great address; the verse serving alike to enhance and substantiate the statement of ver. 49, and to prepare for the revelation of ver. 51 sq. The todro must thus be referred to what follows, and the Sr: taken, not aitioAoyin@s (Beza), but in its ordinary exponential sense. Reuss regards it as simply the 67: recitativum, and omits it in trans- lation. The tenor of the sentence is, however, in favour of the expository sense: comp. ch. vii. 29, and see notes i loc. oapé& Kal ata) ‘ flesh and blood :’ scil. man’s mortal nature; cdpt, capt otca, ob kAnpovouet* Kal aiua, alua bv, ov Severian. On the ex- pression capt cal aiua, see notes on Gal. i. 16. The Apostle precludes all such conceptions by the strong ov dStvarat. In the ancient creeds (as in our Baptismal Service) the regular form of expression was ‘the resurrection of the flesh’ (see Bp Pearson, Creed, Art. x1.): by the ex- pression, however, nothing further was intended than a profession of belief in the essential identity of the risen body with the former body, and, probably, a protest against the early teaching of the school of Origen: see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. vu. 1, p. 541 (Transl.). The speculation of Miiller (Doctr. of Sin, tv. 2, Vol. 1. p. 327) as to the possibility of the future body consisting, not of flesh and blood, but of ‘ flesh and bone,’ KAnpovoet, like to the body of the risen Lord (Luke xxiv. 39), is suggestive but precarious. On the nature of the resurrection-body, see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 153. m1. 4, Vol. rv. p. 413 sq- (Transl.), and on the three views that have been entertained on the diffi- cult question of identity, see Herzog, Real.-Encycl. Art. ‘ Auferstehung,’ Vol. 1. p. 765 sq. ovSe F p00pa «.7.A.] ‘and that corruption doth not inherit incorruption ; ’ this second member being, in each par- ticular, in exegetical parallelism with the former member, and equally with it dependent on the foregoing ért. Meyer rightly calls attention here to the rhetorical force of the abstracts; not 7d p@aprdy (ver. 53) and 7d &paprov, but 7 pbopda and n apbapcia. On the use of the ethical present kAnpovoue?, as mark- ing the fixed and enduring principles of God’s ordering of the world, see notes on ch. v. 13, and on Eph. v. 5. The future KAnpovoujoe is adopted by Lacim. on good, but insufficient, authority. Si a9. LS0d pvorrjptov «.7.A.] * Be- hold, I tell you a mystery :’ revela- tion, solemnly and emphatically introduced, of the full meaning of the declarations in the preceding verse,—and, in what follows, con- cluding and conclusive answer to the great question of ver. 35: Wuxa- ywyet alrols, Ta KeKpupuéva SnAay, Theod. On the meaning of pvarh- Y2 524 IPOS KOPINGIOY= TPOTH. 52 pela, mavtes S€ d\raynodpefa, Ev atopw, & pur} down in favour of the text. Rec. adds pév after rdyres with good critical authority: the preponderance, however, both of external evidence and internal considerations is clearly in favour of the text. Rev., Westc. and Hort; Lachm. places peéy in brackets. So Tisch., Treg., In what fol- lows, Rec., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort adopt od komnoducba, avytes 5t GAAaynodueba, on clearly preponderating authority, and, it may be added, in consonance with St Paul’s teaching, both in this chapter and in 1 Thess. iv. 13 sqq.: Lachm., ob waves 5 GAAaynodueba, See the valuable note of Westc. and Hort, Vol. 11. p. 115 sq. piov (‘something not cognisable by, or not wholly comprehensible by, unassisted human reason’), comp. notes on Eph. v. 32. advtTes ov Kotmnodpeba| ‘ We shall not all of us sleep :’ the mdvtes being emphatic in each member (‘all of us will not sleep, but all of us will be changed ’), and the ov being connected, naturally and closely, with the verb. There is thus no trajection of the negative (Chrys., Theoph., od wavtes), but a double declaration in regard of the adytes, necessitated by the difficulty that would have been felt, if it had simply been said that all would be changed at the wapovcia (the primary and essential substance of the pvorn- piov), and no recognition taken of the possibility that some might be then alive. The ‘all of us’ is thus to be understood as _ including Christians generally (contrast Winer, Gr. § 61. 5, where, though the writer declares in favour of the narrower view, he seems to feel the difficulty of it; see Prof. Moulton’s note), and not, with Meyer, to be restricted to those alive at the Lord’s coming, the jets of (avres of mepi- Aeuméuevor of 1 Thess. iv. 17. The Apostle might have expressed the same sentiment by converting the first member into a concessive clause, —‘we shall all be changed, even though we shall not all pass through death,’ but the force of the passage would have been impaired, and the substance of the pvorfpiov, which certainly includes the subordinate as well as the primary truth (dvres adAaynodbueba) less sharply presented to the reader. The distinct em- phasis resting on the mayres alle- viates, if it does not wholly remove, the over-pressed grammatical diffi- culty: comp. Buttmann, Granun. N. T. p. 106, note. 52. ev atépo] ‘im a moment :’ the neuter &rouoy being here applied to time, which is regarded as ‘tam breve ut insecabile sit,’ Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p.2390: comp. or, rather, contrast Aristot. Plys. vir. 8. 24, ovx oidy Te eis atouous The neuter akapes (‘ too short to be cut’) is similarly used in classical and in later Greek; comp. Aristoph. Plut. 244, ev akape? xpévov, and ev akapet alone in Lucian. Both this term and the év fim Sh8adpod (‘in ictu oculi,’ Vulg., ‘in momentaneo oculi motu,’ Tertull—whether of pupil, as Theod., or of eyelid, as, more probably, Chrys., Theoph.) are appended to the preceding clause to mark the instantaneous nature of the weracxnuaticuds, and to obviate any conception of a passage through death being regarded as a physical xpovous Siatpetcba roy xpdvor. EVs Sas? 325 dd0ahpod, €v TH EoXaTy Tadmyye' cadrice yap, Kat ot vexpot eyepOycovrar adOapror, Kal pels necessity in the process of the transformation: see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. vm. 1. p. 538 (Transl.), and comp. notes on 1 Thess. iv. 17. The term por is supported by some authority, and may have given rise to the ‘ictu’ (rather than ‘ nictu ’) of Vulg. : see Jerome, Ep. ad Minerv. et Alex. (Opp. Vol. 1. p. go2, ed. Vallars). évy TH éoxaTn odAmyyt] ‘at the last trump;’ the év here passing, by a very in- telligible transition, from a local into a temporal sense, ‘ in the sound- ing of the last trumpet,’ i.e. ‘ at the time when the sound is heard,’ éray H TeAcvTala cadmiy—E Axon, Theod.: see Winer, Gr. § 48, év, 2. There are no sufficient grounds for sup- posing that there is here any re- ference to the seventh Apocalyptic trumpet (Rev. xi. 15), or to the seventh and last trumpet which Rabbinical tradition has connected with the end of the world and, especially, with the resurrection of the dead (Eisenmeng. Ent2. Ju- denth., Vol. 1. p. 929), the reference being plainly to that oddmyyos wy} to which the Lord himself alludes (Matth. xxiv. 31), and which the Apostle had already specified in his First Epistle to the Thessal- onians (ch. iv. 16; see notes in loc.). This odAmvyé the Apostle here terms écxdtn, not with reference to any preceding series (roAAal pwval cad- miyyev yiyvoyvra, Severian), but as connected with the close of this aiwy and the last scene of this world’s history; ‘que finem seculi diemque novissimum adesse nuntiat,’ Est. Whether it is to be regarded as announcing the Lord’s presence (comp. Exod. xix. 16), or as awaken- ing the dead and summoning them and the living to the last great auvaywyn (comp. Numb. x. 2), can- not be decided: the latter seems contextually most probable; the adAmyé gives 7d Tis dvacrdoews ovvOnua, Cyril ap. Cram. Cat. cadticer yap) ‘for the trumpet will sound ;’ confirmation of the preceding words, as by a known and reiterated truth. The verb is here used impersonally, 6 oadmvyxtijs being easily and naturally supplied ; compare the similar use of éexfpute scil. 6 ejpvt (Xen. Anab. m1. 4. 36), éonunve (ib. m1. 4. 4) and also of éodAmryte (ib. 1. 2.17), and see Winer, Gr. § 58. 9, Kiihner, Gr. § 352. b. According to Phrynicus, s. v. oaa- miyxths, the correct form would be gadmiyter: see Rutherford, Phryn. p- 279, and Winer, Gr. § 15,8. v. cadTiCw. Kal ol vexpolk.t.A.] ‘and the dead will be raised in- corruptible, and we (the living) shall be changed ;’ clause, appended by the adjunctive «ai, solemnly speci- fying the immediate sequel; comp. Luke xix. 43, Heb. viii. 8. On this use of kal, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, and comp. Biiumlein, Partik. p. 146. The objection founded on this verse, to the interpretation of ver. 51, viz. that the aAAaynodueba is taken in a different meaning in the two verses (Winer, Gr. § 61. 5), is really super- ficial. ‘The essence of the change (that corruption should put on in- corruption), whether in the case of those who have died before the Lord’s xapovcia or those who may be alive at that blessed epoch, re- mains absolutely the same. On the use of the jets as simply indicating that the Apostle naturally groups 326 IIPOS KOPINOIOYS ITPOTH. 53 add\aynoopeba. det yap 76 pbaptov tovTo évdv- cacba abbapoiay kai 76 Ovntdv Tovto evdica- 54 c0a abavaciav. oray dé To POaptov TovTo év- Svonta adbapaiay Kat 7d Ovntdv TodTo evdvanTat aBavaciav, ToTE yevnoeTat 6 hoyos 6 yeypappevos 55 KaremdOn 6 Odvaros eis vikos. ov cov, Bavare, 70 54. Stay 5é& x.7.A.] The reading is somewhat doubtful. The words 7d pbaproy roito évdtionra apbapoiay are omitted by Westc. and Hort (with marg.), but are retained by Rec., Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. (with marg.), on appy. slightly preponderating authority. The decision is difficult, as the external authorities are very nearly balanced, and the internal arguments (probability of conformation on the one side, and at least the possibility of accidental omission by a transcriber, on the other) almost similarly in equipoise. The contextual probability of a formal reiteration of the whole of the preceding statement added to the appy. slight diplomatic preponder- ance, seems fairly to turn the scale. himself with the class to which he then belonged, see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 15. 53- Set yap Td POaprTév «.7.A.] ‘For this corruptible (deKrTicds, Theoph.; the Apostle’s thoughts probably glancing to his own mortal frame), must put on incorruption;’ confirmation of the preceding aAAa- ynobucba, the de? depending upon the principle enunciated in ver. 50, capt kal aiua BactAclay Ocod KAnpovo- pica ov Sivara. The evitoacba (aor.: it was no lingering process; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. d) is very fully illustrated in 2 Cor. v. 2 sqq. The ap@apoia is regarded as something that clothes the embodied personality, all that was corruptible having disappeared and passed away. Theophylact draws a distinction be- tween the p@aprdy and the @vnrdv, on the ground that the former refers to 7a &vuxa (including in it, however, Twa avvxots eokdta, oiov tplxes Kal évuxes), the latter only to Ta €uuyxa. It seems more natural to regard the two terms as practically synonymous (‘repetit idem aliis verbis,’ Est.), the former being the more inclusive and general; each term, as the con- text clearly implies, can only be logically referred to of (ayTes; see Hofm. im loc. 54. TOTE yevnoeTar & Adyos] ‘ then shall come to pass the saying ;’” the rére marking emphatically what will corresponsively follow, and the yevioerat implying that the Adyos will come, as it were, upon the scene, and will be realized. The Aédyos is the solemn utterance (comp. John xii. 38, x. 25) further specified as 6 ‘yeypauuevos, the word, not merely as spoken, but as traced on the prophetic scroll; morotdrat ratra ypapiki paptupia, Theoph. Karemré0n x.7.A.] ‘ death hath been swallowed up unto victory ;’ scil. ‘so as to issue in, or result in, vic- tory ;’ the eis vixos being associated with the verb by a kind of constructio pregnans, and representing that which was the resultant issue of the 7) KaTameiv: see Winer, Gr. § 66. 1.d. The Apostle, in these words, gives a free rendering of the original text (kara Thy ‘EBpaiwy éxdoow, Cyril) of Isaiah (ch. xxv. 8), converting what is expressed actively in the XV. 53, 54, 55, 56. 327 cal A , ‘ , ‘ ‘\ , viKos ; 7oU cov, Oavate, Td KevTpov ; Td dé KevTpov 56 55. vikos—xéyrpov] So, as to order, Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority ; conformation to the order of the LXX not appearing here to be probable, owing to the free nature of the reference: Rec., xévtpov—vixos. In the second clause, @dvare is adopted by the same critical authorities, on greatly preponderating authority : Rec., d5n. Hebrew (‘ He (Jehovah) hath swal- lowed up death,’ Rev.;‘ He shall annihilate death,’ Cheyne) into the passive, and rendering the nyid (‘for ever,’ Rev., Cheyne; so also the Targum and Symmachus), in accordance with the rendering of the LXX in other passages (2 Sam. ii. 26, Job xxxvi. 7, al.), as if con- nected with the Aramaic my) (‘ over- came;’ see Fiirst, Lew. s. v.); and so as equivalent to «is vixos. The original meaning of the Adyos is thus fully preserved, viz. that, at the last, death will be victoriously annihilated by God. This the Apostle regards as it were completed (Chrys., dpay Hin as yeyevnuéva; so Theodoret, Theoph.); hence the appropriate- ness of the aor. kateré0n. The ren- dering of the LXX is xatémey 6 O@dva- tos iaxvoas; that of Theodotion the same rendering as that of the Apostle. The form vikos is late, and appy. of Alexandrian origin; comp. Matth. xii. 20, and see Steph. Thesawr. s. v. Vol. v. p. 1552 (ed. Hase). 55. tod «.7.A.] ‘ Where, O death, is thy victory? Where, O death, is thy sting?’ There is some little doubt whether we are to regard these words as a citation from Hosea (ch. xiii. 14) slightly changed from the LXX, and so defi- nitely a part of the 6 Adyos 6 yeypau- uévos, or asa free use on the Apostle’s part of the words of the prophet, as they appropriately rise in his memory. The latter seems most in harmony with the triumphant tenor of the passage. After having trans- gov, Odavare, ported himself, as it were, to the time when the great utterance of the prophet Isaiah will be fully realized, the Apostle at once breaks forth (oiovel maavifwv, Theod.) into words of exultation and victory sug- gested by another prophetic passage of similar force and pertinence. The rendering of the LXX is, rod % Sinn gov (the 7239 of the original may mean ‘thy. words,’ though much more probably ‘thy plagues:’ see Keil in loc.], @dvare, rod 7d Kévtpov gov, dn; freely changed by the Apostle in accordance with the tenor of the context; vixos being repeated from the preceding words, and &5n changed into @dvare,—as death, and not Hades, was that with which the Apostle’s present teaching was speci- ally concerned. On the use of mod as marking complete exclusion from all association with the subject (otxerat kal aarddAwdre kal Apavorat mayteA@s, Chrys.), comp. ch. 1 20, Rom. iii. 27. In regard of the exact meaning of xévtpov (Heb. 349, ‘pestilence,’ ‘ destruction’) it can scarcely be doubted that death is here represented as having ‘a sting’ (‘aculeus,’ Iren., Tertull., Cypr.) like that of a scorpion (see Rev. ix. 10), with which he strikes and slays. The full force of the image is brought out in the following verse. 56. +d 8 Kévrpov x.7.A.] ‘ Now the sting of death is sin;’ semi- parenthetic explanation of what this xevtpov of death is, what it is that death uses as the chief érAov in his work of destruction; it is from sin, 328 IPOS KOPINGIOYS = TMIPOTH. a , a = , € be PS) , al € , Tov Oavarov % apaptia, 7 dé Sivapyis THs apapTias 57 6 vopos: TO S€ Oew xapis TO SiddvTe Ht Td vikos 58 Sua tod Kupiov jpov “Incod Xprorod. Y Nore, adehpol pov ayamnrol, eOpato. yiverbe, dperaxt- “ »¥ ~ , VnToL, TepiraevorTes EV TH Epyw TOD Kupiov wav- and in sin, that death has his true Kevtpov; ‘si peccatum non esset, mors nil posset,’ Beng. As the scorpion has all his icxds in his sting, so in sin has death all his really malefic power; see Theoph. in loc. On the close connexion be- tween death and sin, see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 87. 2, Vol. m1. p. 116 sq. (Transl.) A Sé Sivapts x.7.A.] ‘and the power of sin is the law.’ This statement has its full explanation in Rom. villi. 7 sq.; compare also Rom. v. 13, cited by Theodoret. The law, as Dorner clearly states the case, is the objec- tive ground of sin’s possibility ; it becomes the power of sin by reveal- ing God’s wrath or displeasure, and thus forcing the evil state to a crisis; Chr. Doctr. § 72. 2, Vol. 11. p. 309 sq. (Transl.). As Harless forcibly expresses it, ‘ the law forces out the disease that is spreading under the skin,’ Chr. Ethics, § 14. 5, p. 114 (Transl.). 57. t@ 8 Oco x.7.A.] ‘But thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ :’ contrasted statement in the form of a concluding thanks- giving; death has this sting, sin has this power, but there is One who has done away with death (2 Tim. i. 10), and has condemned sin (Rom, viii. 3): to God, then, be xdépis who giveth us, in Him and through Him, the final victory. The unusual form vikos is maintained in this verse as in ver. 55: ‘raritas verbi opportuna ad epinikion,’ Beng. The present part. 5i50v7: marks the sureness of the future issue; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, and compare Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 5. 58. “Qore] ‘So then or Conse- quently,’ scil. ‘as the victory is thus assured ;’ exhortation flowing from the thankful assurance of the last, and the immediately preceding verses, the écre with the imperative closing, with suitably rhetorical force (see notes on ch. x. 12), the triumphant verses with an exhorta- tion of a similarly exalted strain. Similar conclusions occur ch. iii. 21,, X>..925 Rien 39;) XIV. 407 etS reference here is not to the whole section, but, as the zapaivects itself, by its reference to xdémos, clearly suggests, to the victorious issue which is promised, and to the assurance thereby implied that the kémros will not be in vain. aSeApot pov dyamntol}] is cer- tainly noticeable as showing how deep was the affection of the Apostle for his converts, even while he is thus noticing, in the case of some of them, the gravest possible form of error: comp. ch. iv. 14, x. 14. €Spator ylveobe, Apetaklynror] ‘be ye firm (stable), wumoveable ;’ the second epithet presenting, on the negative side, the idea of stability (€S5paiov ws xvBos, Plut.) implied in the first; see the closely parallel passage Col. i. 23, and notes im loc. The term duetaxivnros is associated with BéBaos (as here with €dpaios) as a complementary idea, Aristot. Ethic. u. 3. Each epithet has, of XV. 57, 58. XVI. 1. 329 ’ 4 TOTE, ELOOTES OTL 6 KOTOS HudY OK EaTW KEvds EV Kupio. Make your collec- tions weekly. These Tlepi S€ THs Noyias THs eis Tovs XVI. I will send, or myself take, to Jerusalem. I hope soon to stay with you. course, reference to the 7d cadev- @jva (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2) caused by the false teaching relative to the momentous doctrine here dwelt upon: as gadevouevois Ta’Ta wapey- va, Theodoret. ATEpLOGEvOVTES «.7.d.] ‘abounding in the work of the Lord alway ;’ participial clause specifying other accompaniments (comp. Col. i. 28, ii. 5) that were to be present with the 7d €dpaiov and 7d dueraxlynroy: they were not only to be firm and unmoveable in regard of doctrine, but to be fruit- ful in the Lord’s work; od udvov ard épyaCéuevoi, GAAG Kal ex mepiovalas avtd mowtvtes, Theoph. On this use of the participle, see notes and reff. on ch. ii. 13, and on ch. x. 33. The sphere in which (comp. Phil. i, 26, Col. ii. 7, al.) the abounding was to be displayed was 7d épyov tov Kuplov,—the work belonging to Him (possessive gen.) and which He has, as it were, ever at hand for His servants épya(ec@a:; see ch. xvi. 10. What that épyov is will, in each case, be more nearly defined by the context (comp. ch. xvi. 10, Phil. ii. 30): here it is general and inclusive,—‘quodcunque fit ad Christi Domini gloriam, quale esse debet omne opus hominis Christiani,’ Est.; compare Chrysostom. elS6tes} ‘inasmuch as we know :’ causal participle specifying that which, by the nature of the case, would most quicken the rd tepic- oeverv—the clear knowledge, brought home to each hearer and reader by the teaching of this chapter and all the inferences which it suggests (comp. ver. 32), that no «dos could be kevds, and without fruit (comp. ver. 10), in Him in whom taptes (wo- mwoim@joovrat (ver. 22), and before whose judgment-seat all will be made manifest and each receive Ta 51a Tov oduaros (2 Cor. v. 10). év Kupfo thus belongs, not to 6 kéros dua (Theoph. 1, Est.)—which the order obviously precludes—nor even exclusively to the ov« €orw xevds (Theoph. 2), but to the whole clause 6 xémos x.7.A., to which the vital words form a qualifying con- clusion ; comp. ch. ix. I. and notes in loc. This reference to «é7os and to @pyov Tod Kuplov forms a suitable introduction to the practical duty which is specified in the next and concluding chapter. VIII. FINAL DIRECTIONS, COMMUNICA- TIONS, AND SALUTATIONS (ch. xvi). XVI. 1-9. Directions as to the col- lection, and arrangements as to the Apostle’s visit. I. Mepi 8& tH ANoytag K.7.A.] ‘ Now concerning the collection that is being made for the saints ;’ transition, by means of the 8 peraBarikdy (notes on Gal. i. 11), to a subject on which the Apostle had previously communicated with them, the clause standing partially extra structwram (comp. ch. vii. 1, viii. 1), and at once bringing the topic before the reader : comp., how- ever, Winer, Gr. § 47. ¢, 8. Vv. mepl, where (less probably) the clause is regarded as under the grammatical vinculum of the éomep d:€rata. The unique term Aoyla () avAAoyh Ta xpnudrwv, Theod.), found only here 330 TIPO KOPINSIOYS TIPOTH. aylous, womep Sieraka Tats exxdyoias THS Tada- 2 Tias, OUTws Kal UpeEls ToLnoaTe. ‘ / KaTa play oap- ¢ 4 c A ’ c ~ 4 Barov exaotos vyuov map’ éeavt@ TUeTa Onoav- 2. oaBBdrov}] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., caBBatwr. and in ecclesiastical writers (see Suicer, Thesaur. s. vy. Vol. 1. p. 247) is replaced elsewhere by the practi- cally synonymous expressions, kot- vwvla, Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. viii. 4; xapis, ver. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 4; evAoyia, 2 Cor. ix. 5; eAenuoctva, Acts xxiv. 17; ™poopopal, ib. This Aoyla is specially defined as being destined for rovs aylovs,—the saints about whose needs the Apostle had spoken, and who would be well-known as belonging to the mother Church at Jerusalem; compare Rom. xv. 26. Why the Christians at Jerusalem were so particularly in need cannot certainly be stated. At first the need was so great as apparently to have necessitated a community of goods (Acts. ii. 44. sq., iv. 32),—all help and employment having prob- ably been withheld from those who had joined the hated and persecuted community. When this form of benevolence and @iAadeAgia had either partially ceased, or, from the rapid increase of numbers (see Acts vi. 7), failed to supply what was needed, it probably became generally understood and even partly arranged (comp. Gal. ii. 10), that efforts must be made for the mother Church by the daughter Churches outside: see Ewald, Hist. of Isr. Vol. viz. pp. 335, 358 (Transl.). On Christian collections, see an interest- ing sermon by Jones (of Nayland), Serm. 5, p. 47 sqq. (Lond. 1829). Gotep S:érafa x.7.A.] ‘as I gave order to the Churches of Galatia ;’ either on the journey mentioned Acts xviii. 23, or, less probably, by a letter (Ewald in loc. ; comp. p. 100). As the Apostle stood gladly pledged (Gal. ii. 10) to bring this subject before the Gentile Churches which he founded or visited, it seems most natural to suppose that this order was given orally, and in detail. Chrysostom and Theophylact call attention to the d:éraga as carrying with it a tone of authority. It seems here rather to point to the detailed and explicit character of the directions, which is partly exemplified in what follows: comp. Plato, Phed. p. 115 c, diadcyduevos kal Siardrtwey Exacta TOY AEVyOMEVOY ; Xenoph. Cyr. vit. 5. 15, mpds 7d obp- mimtov ael Siatdttwy. In the corre- lative éomep—otrw there is a tone of precision : they were to be careful to follow out in detail the orders given to the sister Church. Reference is perhaps made to Galatia rather than to any other Church where a collection might still be going for- ward, because in the case of the former Church all details in con- nexion, not only with regard to col- lecting but to forwarding, had been fully carried out: comp. Hofmann in loc. 2. kata plavoaBBarov] ‘ Hvery Jirst day of the week, ‘primo quo- que die hebdomadis, Beza; the kara being used in its distributive sense (see notes, ch. xiv. 27), and pointing to each recurrence of the day (Winer, Gr. § 49. a. 6), and the sing. oaBBarov being used in ref. to the week (as in Mark xvi. 9, Luke XVI. 2, 3. 331 pilev 06 te & evoddta, Wa pH dtav Ew Tore hoylar yivwrTa. drav dé tapayévwpat, ods eav 3 } , § x > vA , , > lal OKYLATHTE, OL ETLETOAMY TOUTOUS TEUYw ATEVEyKELW 3 doxmdonre, 5° emorodrddy] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg.: Rec., Rev. (with marg.), Westc. and Hort, doxiudonre 5: émiotoAG@y, TovTous k.7.A. xviii. 12) and not to the day. The use of play rather than mpérny (Mark loc. cit.) is Hebraistic (see Winer, Gr. § 37. 1), the custom being to name the days of the week, ‘ one, two, &c.,in the sabbath’ (or ‘ week’ ; see Gesen. Lez. s. v. 4): see Smith, Dict. Chr. Antig. s. v- ‘ Week,’ Vol. mm. p. 2050, Lightfoot, on Matt. (ch. xxviii. 1), Ewald, Antig. of Israel, p.1o1 (Transl.). It perhaps may be conceded that this passage cannot positively be cited as implying that at this time there was regularly divine service on this day, but it certainly may be said that there are traces of it in the N. T.: see for example Acts xx. 7, and consider the significant fact that the second appearance of our risen Lord to the assembled Apostles was exactly a week after the first appearance (John xx. 26), and so on this first day: compare Bingham, Antiq. xx. oe mapa éavTo TLOETo) ‘lay by him,’ ‘apud se seponat,’ Vulg.; the prep. with the dative marking the locality, &c., in which the action of the verb takes place,— the idea of closeness, or relation to the here, being distinctly traceable in the preposition generally, and especially when joined with the dat. : see Donalds. Crat. § 177. 6 te Gv evoSGrar} whatsoever (fre mworv, etre dAlyov, Chrys.) he may prosper im ;’ scil. ‘pro ratione pro- speritatis quam a Deo obtinuerit,’ Erasm. The 6 7: may here be taken as the subject to the passive evodov- o0a:; compare Herod. Hist. v1. 73, ebwdH0n Td mpiyyua. So appy. Syr. (‘id quod veniet in manus suas’), Copt. (‘bene ipsi cessit’), Armen. (‘quodeunque succedet’). The in- dividualizing tenor of the clause, however, seems to render it more probable that the verb has here a personal reference, and that the é 7 is the accusative of the defining object; comp. Matt. xix. 20, and see above, notes on ch.ix. 25, where this usage is fully discussed. The form evodovc#a occurs also in Rom. i. 10, and in 3 John 2, and in both cases, as here, in the metaphorical sense ‘ prospero successu gaudere’: see Meyer on Rom.i. 10. The pur- pose of the foregoing command is explained in the clause that follows, —that the collections may not be going on (yivwyrat) when the Apostle shall have come to them. All was then to be ready. The weekly col- lections were to be amassed, and to be in a state to be transmitted to those in need. The antithetical collocation of the words is designed to throw the emphasis on the rére— then, when there will be so much else to be attended to; ‘tune alia agemus,’ Beng. 3. ots dav S0xidonre] ‘whom- soever ye shall (then) approve ;’ the aor. subjunct. standing in parallelism with the same tense in the preced- ing clause, and, with the usual force of the mood, contemplating the action as in the future: see Kiihner, Gr. § 394. 1. The Apostle naturally assigns to those who supply the money the further duty of choosing 332 MPOS KOPINOIOY= NPOTH. 4 TH xdpw dspav eis ‘Iepovoadyp: eav Sé akiov 7 4. &kwv i) So Lachm., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating authority: Rec., Tisch., 7 &f.ov. fit persons to be the bearers of it. On the use of éay for &y after rela- tives, most probably a peculiarity of the later language, see Winer, Gr. § 42. 6. Lachmann and Tregelles here adopt the latter form, but on authority appy. insufficient, the tendency to correction being taken into due consideration. bv émiatohayv] ‘by means of letters,’ scil. ‘ with letters given to them to attest their missions ; ’ comp. Winer, Gr. §47..1, and §27. 2. These words must be joined with méupw (Syr., Copt., th.; Chrys., Theoph.) rather than with doxmdonre (Arm., Rey.), as the émioroAat could hardly be the media of the Soximacia: the testing and consequent approval (comp. notes on Phil. i. 10) would be brought about by other means; letters would be the means employed to convey the result. To regard all this as expressed by doximacew 5° emiotoA@y would certainly be to as- sume a rather unusual brachylogy. In the connexion of the clause with méuyw, the difficulty is less, as the use of the prep. with verbs ex- pressive of motion, condition, &c., to denote the circumstances and re- lations amid which the action takes place, is certainly far from being unusual: comp. I John v. 6, Heb. ix. 12, and see Harrison, Greek Prep. s. v. 5a, p. 197. The words are placed in a position of promin- ence (not rovtous 8: émiaroAGy mEeupw) as marking the contrasted course to that which, under particular cireum- stances (ver. 4), the Apostle might be led to adopt: as &y ef édeyev, bre a. , > ~ Kayw guvegoual autos, kal KOLovnTw Tis Aevroupylas bia Tay ypauudrwr, Chrys. The word émorodal may refer to a single letter (Kiihner, Gr. § 348. 2. rem. 2), but more naturally implies that the Apostle would write not merely to one but to several of those to whom the approved mess- engers were to go; see Winer, Gr. S27. 2s Tihv xXdpiv bpev] ‘your gracious gift,’ ‘ beneficentiam vestram,’ Beza: comp. 2 Cor. viii. 4, 6, 7,19. The word is associated with dwped, Demosth. Mid. p. 567, Polyb. Hist. 1. 31.6: see Steph. Lez. s. v. Vol. vi11. p. 1339 (ed. Hase). 4. éav 8 détov x.7.A.] ‘ but if the matter be worthy of my going also;’ excepted case, in which the Apostle will not simply send letters, but will go himself. The substan- tival infinitive is dependent on the atov (Winer, Gr. § 44. 4. a), and the reference of the &éov is to the amount of the Aoyia: if the amount were only to prove small it would not be becoming that the Apostle should be the bearer of it; maAw eis dayiAciay avtovs mpotpémet, Chrys. In the kaué and the oby éeuol ropev- govtat (not mopedooua av avrois; comp. Acts x. 20) the apostolic dig- nity is gently, yet distinctly, main- tained. He will not go unless the gift be worthy of the Church. The derivative meaning ‘meet’ or ‘seem- ly’ (2 Thess. i. 3) does not seem in harmony with the present use of aéiov with a dependent genitive. That the Apostle did go to Jerusa- lem with these offerings would seem to be clear from Acts xx. 3, xxi. 17, compared with Aci: xxiv. 17. This was his fifth journey to that city: VE, 2555.6, 333 TOU Kame TopeverOar, dV €“ol TopedoovTat. *Ededoopat S€ pos buds orav Maxedoviay Si€Ow, 5 Maxedoviav yap Siepxopar, mpos duds dé trvxdv 6 he had previously borne alms thither on his second journey; see Acts xi. 29 sq. 5. EAdevoomar 8% x-r.A.] ‘ But I will come to you when I shall have passed through Macedonia.’ From 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, it is clear that the original intention of the Apostle was to go from Ephesus to Corinth and thence onward to Macedonia, returning from Macedoniato Corinth, tva devrépay xdpw Exwow (see 2 Cor. i, 15). This intention was not carried out: to spare them (2 Cor. i. 23)) he went first to Macedonia (Acts xx. 1), and visited Corinth on his return. MaxeSoviav yap Srépxopat) ‘for I pass through Macedonia,’ ‘I make there no stay, but perhaps shall do so in your case;’ there being no parenthesis, but a contrasted relation between the d:épxoua: and the mapamev@: see Winer, Gr. § 62. 1. The present d:€pxoua: marks that which was now fixed in the mind of the speaker, and regarded as almost actually an accomplishment ; comp. Xen. Cyr. VII. I. 20, emf ye tovrous éyw aitds mapepxouat, In &pxouat and its com- pounds, and a few other verbs of similar meaning, the present is often preferentially used where the action is contemplated as near at hand: the future often seems to place the commencement of the action too far off, and thus is instinctively avoided by the writer when the matter is near and imminent: see the good comments of Buttm. Gramm. N. T. p- 176 sq. Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 7. 6. mpds tyas 8 w.7.A.) ‘ but with you it may chance that I shall abide or even winter;’ the pds juas being studiously put forward and with a slight emphasis,—‘ Mace- donia I pass through; with you, perhaps, I shall stay;’ dpa mpo- tlunow, Chrys. (Cram. Cat.) In the present use of mpds the essential idea of the here involved in the root (see Donalds, Crat. § 177) predominates over that of motion conveyed by the s, but the true meaning of the prep. with the accus. may be traced in this use (esp. when with persons) as denoting approach and intercourse rather than mere passive locality ; comp. Matth. xiii. 56, John i. 1, 1 John i, 2, Even in non-personal reference, Mark ii. 2, iv. 1, Acts v. 10, al., the appropriateness of the case, and the hint of antecedent motion may easily be traced: comp. Winer, Gr. s. v. rpds (with acc.), § 49. h, Kriiger, Sprachlehre, § 68 sq. 4, Bernhardy, Synt. p. 202, and notes on Gal. i. 18. The neut. impersonal participle tuxdv does not occur else- where in the N. T.: itis properly an accus. absolute, but is here used as a simple adverb. On these forms, see Kiihner, Gr. § 487. The Greek expositors refer the use of the ex- pression to the uncertainty in the Apostle’s mind as to what might be the Lord’s will (see ver. 7): Bengel, perhaps more naturally, says sim- ply,—‘ familiarissime loquitur.’ It may be noticed that Westc. and Hort adopt the reading kat apeva. Conformation to the rapa xemdow is certainly far from improbable, but the external authority (BM; 67%) does not seem sufficient to turn the seale in favour of the less usual com- pound. The form xarauévew only occurs once in the N. T. (Acts i. 13). 334 IIPOS KOPINGIOY> IIPOTH.: la , 7 Lal Tapapeva 7) Kal Tapaxepaow, Wa vpels ME TpO- , @ 9X , > N cn 7 méubnte ob eav Topevapat. ov Oé\w yap tuas apte év mapddw idetv, édrilo yap xpdovov twa eryretvar c 7. eaml(w ydp] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., eAmi(w 5¢é. In what follows émitpéln is adopted in the above-mentioned edd. on very clearly preponder- ating authority : Rec., émirpéry. The same editors place the «al in the margin, but again on authority that does not seem to be sufficient. Yva dpets K.7.A.j ‘that ye may set me forward on my journey whither- soever I may go ;’ friendly purpose of the contemplated stay, duets again having emphasis and marking the Apostle’s interested feeling (rijv aps” avtovs d:d8eow, Theoph.) towards his converts. The use of the relative adverb, or (according to Kiihner, Gr. § 565) conjunction, of place, ot instead of of, is condemned by gram- marians, but is the usage of the N. T.. (Luke x. 1, xxii. 10, xxiv. 28) and indeed of later Greek generally : see Rutherford, Phrynichus, § 30, p. 114. sq. Whither the Apostle was then earnestly designing to go (ero év TO mvevuari, Acts xix. 21) was Jerusalem, and then—Rome. 7. ov B€Aw yap «.7T.A.] ‘Hor I do not wish to see you now (merely) im passing:’ confirmatory of the not improbable stay, the &pr: év mapddp ideiv (to be connected together) cer- tainly appearing to point to the Apostle’s having thus seen them once before, though it cannot posi- tively be maintained from the words (4pt: being appy. unemphatic) that it was so. The two clearest pas- sages in favour of the Apostle’s having thrice visited Corinth are 2 Cor. xii. 14, and xiii. 1,—but even these cannot be pronounced con- clusive, as, in the first passage, tpirov Tovro may be joined with €éroiuws éxw, and, in the second passage, the €pxouat (see above, notes on ver. 5) may point to a purpose which, in re- gard of the assumed second journey, was not actually carried out. We are not, then, exegetically justified in pressing the &pr: ev mapddm in the contested question above alluded to. On the meaning of &pr: and its prac- tical equivalence, in later writers, to viv, see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 6. In this later Greek it seems stronger than the mere ‘just’ to which it often exactly corresponds in earlier Greek: comp. Rutherford, Phryn. § 12,p.70sq. The term ev mapddp (‘ thairhleipands,’ Goth.) occurs only here in the N. T., but is found both in earlier and later Greek writers,— sometimes with év 77 mapd5@, Polyb. Hist. v. 68. 8), but more commonly without, the article. édXmriLo yap «.7.A.] ‘for I am hoping to tarry some little time with you af the Lord should permit:’ in con- firmatory explanation of the od Aw k.7.A.; the Apostle’s hope made the desire more distinctly felt not to pay merely a passing visit. The hope is émmmetvat (aor.,—the whole thought being concentrated on the action apart from its development; see Kuhner, Gr. § 389. 7. e. 8), but the hope is subordinated to the Lord’s permission,—the aor. having its tinge of the future exact, and simi- larly directing all the attention to the action referred to: so ch. vii. 8, where see notes. It is doubtful AVE. 3, 3, Gj "10. 335 mpos vmas, €av 6 Kipios emitpey. eryserd Se év 8 "Edéow Ews THs TevTNKOTTHS* Ovpa ydp por avéw- 9 yev peyadn Kal évepyys, Kal avtuKelwevoe Trod)ot. Give a true welcome to Timothy. Iurged Apollos to go to you, but he waits awhile. whether 6 Kupios refers to the First or the Second Person of the blessed Trinity ; the latter (comp. ver. 10) seems the more probable; see, how- ever, notes on ch. iv. 19. 8. éwisevd 8 «.7-A.] ‘But I shall tarry in Ephesus until Pente- cost :’ statement of his present ex- pectation, founded on the circum- stances of the‘ case (hence perhaps, ‘shall tarry’ rather than ‘ will tarry,’ Auth.; see Maetzner, Engl. Gr. Vol. 1. p. 80, 82, Transl.), of remain- ing where he was, till the season was more fully advanced. It is doubtful whether we are here to adopt the present tense émiuévw (Arm., perhaps Goth. [but Gothic has no future form]; Westc. and Hort), or the future érmeva (Vulg., Clarom., Copt.; Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev.); either yielding a contextually appropriate sense. Perhaps the use of the future in ver. 5, and esp. in ver. 7, may give the preponderance to the use of that tense in the present verse. Pentecost is named as a rough date,—probably at some little distance from the time when the Apostle was writing (early in the year),—when travelling would be easy and convenient. 9. Supa yap por «.7.A.] ‘for a door is (now) standing open to me, great and effectual:’ confirmatory explanation of the foregoing state- ment ; a Opa Tod Adyou (Col. iv. 3; see also 2 Cor. ii. 12; Acts xiv. 27 is slightly different) was now stand- ing open, or, in other words, obsta- cles were removed, and a great *Eav Sé€ €\On Tipdbeos, Bdérere 10 opportunity for the preaching of the Gospel was now being offered, and,— it must needs be,—taken. This @vpa is further described as peydAn, in regard of the numbers that were thus able to make use of it (edpdxwpds hot 7 eloodos, Chrys.), and, by a very intelligible transference of metaphor, évepyis, in reference to the activity which the opportunity called forth ; comp. Philem. 6, and notes in loc. The intransitive form avéwyev is con- demned by Phrynichus as a solecism, avéwkrat being the proper form ; see Rutherford in loc. p. 247. tohdol] ‘and there are many opposing ;’ not ex- actly moAAot of ayrirelvovres, Theod., but, ‘there are many in number en- gaged in opposition,’ —the participle being anarthrous: comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 462. 1. The clause gives a further reason why the Apostle must stay on,—‘ a great opportunity, many ready to enter in, and many, too, to try and hinder them.’ That «al has thus its proper force, is clear: comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 2. b. For the verification of the statement, see Acts xix. 23 sqq. Kal dyvtiKelwevor 10-12. Communications relative to Timothy and Apollos. 10. ’Eav 8 EABn & Tipdbeos] ‘Now if Timothy should come:’ transition, by means of the 5é ueraBartixdy, to the subject of the mission of Timothy ; see ch. iv. 17. Some little difficulty has been felt in this passage owing to the use of the hypothetical é¢v, Timothy hav- 336 IIPOS KOPINGIOY= HPODA. 9° > / a ‘\ ¢ -~ \ ‘ ¥ iva adpdBws yevyntat mpos vuas* TO yap epyov 11 Kupiov épyderar os Kayo" py Tis ody avrov > , , be uae, > ee y eEovlevyon. mpomépipate O€ avTov ev Elpyvy, wa 10. Kayé] So Lachm., Tisch., T'reg., on clearly preponderating authority : Rec. xa éyé: Westc. and Hort (with marg.), ey. ing apparently been sent specially, and with definite instructions. The true explanation seems to be, that as Timothy was sent by way of Macedonia (Acts. xix. 22) the Apos- tle felt it to be quite possible that his messenger’s arrival might be delayed, and that, as appears really to have been the case, he might not, at that time, reach them at all. Timothy, as we know, was still in Macedonia when the Apostle wrote thence his second Epistle: see 2 Cor. i. I. BAétretTe tva AHSBas «-T-A.] ‘see that he be with you without fear ;’ the iva marking the intention of the verb (comp. 2 John 8, Bdérere éavtovs, iva ph amore- onte; Col. iv. 17, BAéme thy SiaKkovlay ... wa avthy mAnpois), and the change from the more usual fA€- mere ut with a positively expressed predication, to the BAemere iva, with a negatively expressed predication, being designed to give greater force and prominence to the adverb ; ‘ so receive him that his intercourse with you may be free and fearless ;’ “secure apud vos agat,’ Estius. On this union of modal adverbs with elvat, y yveoOat, k.7.A., see Kiihner, Gr. $353. 4, §355. a I: comp. Thucyd. 1. 14, xaAew@s abrots 7 avd- Why this direction was given is differently explained. The direction in the next verse, especially when compared with 1 Tim. iv. 12, seems almost certainly to in- dicate that it was the youth of Timo- thy (he was now seven or eight years oTacs eyeveTo, younger than when his vedrns was alluded to in r Tim. J. c.: see notes in loc.) that suggested the BAémere «.7.A. So rightly Chrys., Theod., al. The inference that Timothy was of a timid disposition (De Wette, Alford), cannot be substantiated : comp. notes om 2 Tim. 1. 6. TO yap Epyov Kuplov x.7.A.] ‘for he works the work of the Lord:’ in confirmation of the direction just given; amd THs Siakovias akidmiorov avtoy moet, Chrys. On the term pov Kuptov, see notes on ch. xv. 58. II. py tig otv x.7.A.] ‘let no man therefore set him at nought :’ a stronger expression than the kara- ppovetrw of 1 Tim. iv. 12, and to be translated accordingly ; ‘ pro nihilo habeat,’ Beza, and so appy. Arm., which adopts a term compounded similarly to the Greek. Bengel very pertinently cites Psalm exix. 141, vewTepos eye eiur kal eLovdevwmevos. This clause is only to be separated by a colon from what precedes. What follows is matter of a slightly different nature: eis Tiy Tov wabnrov Bepamefay adtovs dieyelper, Theod. mpotéwwate S& attov év eip- 4vn)| ‘ But set him on his way m peace :’ contrasted statement ; ‘ far from giving him cause for appre- hension and anxiety, or setting at nought him and his counsels, show him friendly attention—in peace ;’ 2.e. in a spirit wholly removed from opposition and contention; ‘ hu- manitate prosequimini,’ Est. The words éy eipjjvn are connected with what follows by Hofmann, on the ground that they form an aimless avi. 1 I, 12. 337 €\On mpds per exdexouar yap adrov peta Tar aSerpar. Tlepit S€ “ATOM Tod adedhod, 12 ToANa wapeKdreoa avTov Wa EOn pds Buds pera Tov adedpav* Kal mavtws ovK HV Oé\npa wa vov 11. pds we} So Rec., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating author- ity: Lachm., Treg., xpds éué. addition to what precedes. Surely the whole tenor of the context shows that it is to the acts of the Corin- thians that attention is directed, and that the modal clause is needed to give the mporéuvare its actual, as well as its implied, aspect of true Christian @cparela: eipjyny avada- Bdvres mpomeuware aitoy ev TH Tme- Tépa duovola kal eiphyn, Origen. peta TOv aSeAbav] ‘with the brethren ;’ scil. who are with him; compare ver. 12. Only one, viz. Erastus (of Corinth),is mentioned by St Luke as being sent with Timothy (Acts xix. 22); but this by no means excludes the possibility of others haying gone with them, or of the Apostle’s expecting that Timothy would be joined by others on his return after his mission. 12. Mept 8 "AtroAA® tod 48- eddpod] ‘ But concerning Apollos the brother :’ transition to the subject of Apollos, and to the desire ap- parently entertained, and perhaps expressed to St Paul (comp. Am- brost.), on the part of the Corinth- ians, that the eloquent and per- suasive Alexandrian (Acts xix. 24 sqq.) should pay them a second visit. Subjects in which the Corinth- ians were interested are similarly introduced ver. 1, and ch. vii. 1, 25, viii. 1, xii. 1. On the sort of extra- structural character of this -zepl k.7.A., see Winer, Gr. § 47. e., and comp. notes on ver. 1. The rov &5eApov is probably added to show the close relation that existed be- tween St Paul and Apollos (Est.), and the unreasonableness of regard- ing them as representatives of dif- ferent parties. TONG Twapexddeoa «.7.A.] ‘I besought him much that he should come unto you with the brethren;’ the tva denoting alike the subject and the purpose of the entreaty; see 1 Thess, iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 12, Col. i. 9, and notes on Eph. i.17. The brethren here alluded to are certainly not companions of the Apostle’s who are supposed to have joined with him in the request (Hofm.), but the (Corinthian) brethren who were the bearers back of this Epistle to Corinth. kal wdvras x.T.A.] ‘and there was not will at all (on his part) that he should come now ;’ the iva still more distinctly mark- ing the subject of the 0éAnua, and proportionately obscuring the idea of purpose; comp. Matth. xviii. 14, John vi. 39, 40, and see notes on ch. xiv. 5, Winer, Gr. § 44. 8. b, and the sensible remarks of Butt- mann, N. T. Gramm. p. 204 sq. Apollos was unwilling to go, per- haps from some fear that his pre- sence might call out anew the spirit of faction and party (comp. Origen in loc. ap. Cram. Cat.), but more likely from local and temporary circumstances which, in his judg- ment, at that time absolutely pre- cluded him. To refer the @éAnua to the will of God (as appy. Theod., Theoph.; compare Beng.) when nothing to suggest such a ref. is found in the context, is, as Est. rightly says, ‘nimis coactum.’ On Z 338 MPOS KOPINGIOY> ITPOTH. ENOn, ehevorera SE, Grav edKaipyoy. 13 A > a , Tpnyopetre, oTHKeTE EV TH TlaTEL, Be firm in faith. Do all things in love, 14 avdpilerbe, Kpataotobe’ ravtTa ipav &v ayary yweo bw. T5 adyrws ov and its parallelism with the N. T. was ot, see Buttm. N. T. Gran. p. 204. evKatphon] ‘when he shall have found opportunity,’ ‘ubi commodum tempus nactus fuerit.’ The form evkaipey occurs Mark vi. 31, Acts xvii. 21. It is found in Polybius (Hist. xx. 9. 4) and later writers, but is condemned by the gram- marians (Meris, p. 125, Thomas Mag. p. 829, Etym. Magn. p. 740, Phryn. § 103), the correct expres- sion being ev oxoAjs exew. The words eW«opos (Mark vi. 24, Heb. iv. 16) and edxaipia (Matth. xxvi. 16, Luke xxii. 6) are perfectly good Attic words, but not in the sense of oxoAaios and oxoA7y : see Rutherford, Phryn. p. 205. phanas. 6Tav 13, 14. Hwxhortations. 13. Fpnyopettre x.7.A.] Be watch- ful, stand firm im the faith, quit yourselves like men, be strong. In these four vigorous exhortations, together with that in verse 14, the Apostle sums up the whole duty of the Corinthian convert in the trying times and amid the varied tempta- tions in which this Epistle would find him. That duty is set forth as involving five Christian graces, namely, —watchfulness (spiritual brightness and alacrity: opp. to 7d Kabevderv, 1 Thess. v. 6, comp. Matth. XXV. 13; associated with vie, 1 Thess. 7. c., 1 Pet. v. 8: the form is late, Phrynichus, § 95), steadfast- ness in the faith (ever a sure test whether baptismal grace is working Tlapakada dé vpas, > , ' * Yield respect to the adehpot household of Ste- He, Fortunatus, and Achaicus refreshed me. within, Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 25, 4, p- 227, Transl.: contrast KAvdwvi- (ecOa, Eph. iv. 16, and cadevec@u. 2 Thess. ii. 2), Christian manliness (‘ viriliter agite,’ Vulg.: da. Aeydu. in N. T., but of not uncommon occur- rence in classical and later writers; connected with icxvcare, Mace. ii. 64, and contrasted with deAaivew, Plutarch, Mor. p. 1046 ¥F), spiritual strength (comp. Eph. iii. 16: passive in form, but probably middle in meaning; comp. Luke i. 80, ii. 40; a later form, kpartvecOa being the earlier and correct form), and, in the following verse, Christian love. The illustrative comment on this verse by Origen (Cram. Cat.) is too long for citation, but is well worth referring to. 14. wavra bpdv x.7.A.] ‘let all your doings be done in love;’ the pres. imper. marking each action in its evolution. Love is to be the all- embracing sphere in which all is to be done: Chrysostom cites the words under the form, mayra meta ayarns ywéoOw, but this is a much weaker form: love would thus only be repre- sented as a concomitant: comp. Eph. vi. 23, and notes in loc. On the spiritual significance of the pre- cept, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 19. 6, p. 173 (Transl.), and comp. Rothe, Chr. Ethik, § 156, Vol. 1. p. 536 (ed. 2). 15-18. Communications relative to the house of Stephanas and others. &@ «.7.A.] 15. NapakadrG ‘Now I beseech you, ANie*%3,° 14, FS; 16. 339 » ‘\ | ee Lal 4 > % > “ “A oldare THY olkiav Yrepava, dtu eoriv dmapyy THs > \ > / La) c ¢ »” © Ayatas kat eis Siaxoviav Tots dyiows eraéav éav- tovs' Wa Kal wvpets vrotaganabe Tots ToLovTos 16 brethren,—ye know the house of Stephanas :’ transition (8€ meta- Barixdy) to special commendation of Stephanas and his house, and to similar commendatory mention of the other Corinthians who had come with him, and were now at Ephesus. The construction is suspended, the ta wal «.7.A, (ver. 16) being de- pendent upon the wapakada, and the ofare x.7.A. (o¥Sare cannot possibly be an imperative) a parenthetically appended comment designed to en- hance the entreaty and to justify the substance of it. The ofdare x.7.A. is, however, as De Wette rightly observes, not a pure parenthesis: the rots ro.ovrots in the clause which carries on the suspended structure being really dependent for its explan- ation on the parenthetical portion which has preceded it. Stephanas and his household had been baptized by the Apostle (ch. i. 16), and appear from this passage to have been among the most devoted of the Christian converts. Nothing more is known of them. atrapx} THIS *Axatas] ‘the first-fruits of Achaia:’ more fully, Rom. xvi. 5, arapxh ris *Aglas cis Xpiordv. There is no reason for modifying the meaning of arapxh. Dionysius, Damaris, and others with them (Acts xvii. 34), might individually have embraced the faith a short time before them; but, as a family, those here men- tioned distinctly deserved the title. The province of Achaia included the Peloponnesus, Hellas proper, and the adjacent islands: with Mace- donia it represents the whole of Greece: comp. 1 Thess. i. 7, 8. Kal Erafav «.7.A.] ‘and that they set themselves to minister to the saints ;’ the ér: extending over both clauses, or rather, being mentally repeated before the ératay: ‘ sermo pluralis refertur ad domum Ste- phane, que est collectiva multorum,’ Est. The expression tdoceww éavrobs seems to mark the steady purpose and devotion of these converts: Schleusner (Lex. s. v. tdoow) ap- positely cites Plato, Republ. p. 371 ¢, éavtovs emt thy diaxovlay rdrrovat tavThy ; see also Kypke in loc. Vol. 1. p- 234. What the nature of the diakovia was cannot be determined. It probably included much more than a strong interest in the col- lections, the @y:o: being here quite general and inclusive in its reference. The dative is dependent on the verbal subst. d5:akovia: see Kiihner, Gr. § 424. There is in such a con- nexion a certain amount of harsh- ness; compare Rumpel, Casuslehre, p- 299. In 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, the expression assumes the easier form diaxovias Tis eis Tos aylous: destina- tion, however, is the prevalent idea in this latter case; benefit, that in the text. 16. tva Kal tpets «.7.A.] ‘ that ye also submit yourselves unto such men (as these) ;’ dependent on the mentally repeated mapaxadA@; see above, on ver. 15, and on ver. 12. The xat marks the correspondent relation: as they were so zealous, ye ought to be correspondently sub- ordinate; comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. The generalizing rots tro.odros precludes the assumption that there is here reference to any oflice which 340 IPOS KOPINOIOYS TIPOTH. 17 Kal mavTl TO ouvepyodyTe kal KoTL@VTL. xaipw de - oe iad 4 ” ‘ / ‘ éml TH Tapovoia Stepava Kai Poptovvatrov Kat > oo n~ ¢ ae , G , a > , Ayaikov, OTL TO VLETEPOV VOTEPHLA OTOL aveTdn- lal % 18 pwoav' avéravoay yap TO E“ov TVvEdpa Kal TO 17. boprovvdrov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., bovprovvdrov. The above- mentioned edd. also adopt iduérepov, on preponderating authority: Rec., buoy. sufficient authority. Stephanas might have held. He and his were to be honoured and deferred to for their work’s sake. Kal mwdavTt. «.7.A. ‘and to every one that shareth in the work and toileth ;’ the civ in the verb being probably inclusive (‘vel cum illis vel mecum,’ Est.’ or, perhaps better, ‘cum aliis,’ Beng.), and referring to Christians generally ; so appy. Vulg., ‘omni cooperanti,’ sim. Arm., /th., Goth.; Syr., ‘ quilaborat nobiscum.’ On the meaning of komidw, which always seems to carry with it some idea of suffering labour, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 9 and on I Thess. ii. 9. 17. xalpw 8 x.7.A.] ‘And I rejoice at the coming here of éc.;’ the d€ adding a new though germane sub- ject,—the Apostle’s gladness that Stephanas and his two comrades are come to Ephesus, and were supply- ing the place of the absent. On this familiar use of 5é, see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2. Nothing is known of Fortunatus and Achaicus. They might have belonged to the family of Stephanas, but, as being mentioned by name and separately, most likely were unconnected with it. Fortu- natus is mentioned by Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. cap. 59, and in a manner that has been thought to favour his identification with the Fortuna- tus here mentioned; see Smith, Dict. Chr. Biogr. Vol. 1. p. 556. In what follows, Lachm. adopts airol on what is now clearly in- The epistle of Clement was, how- ever, written probably more than a generation later than this present Epistle. torépnya Ott TO DwWéeTEpoV k.T.A.] ‘because that which was lacking on your part these (brethren) supplied;’ sim. Vulg., ‘id quod vobis deerat;’ Syr., ‘in quo deficiebatis erga me;’ Goth., ‘izvarana vaninassu ’ [derived from ‘vans,’ want]; Copt., ‘defectum ves- trum.’ The words may mean ‘the want of you,’ scil., ‘on my part,’ ‘vestrum omnium presentiam mihi alioqui desideratam,’ Est., the tueé- tepov being taken objectively (ch. xv. 31; so Winer, Gr. § 22. 7, Mey., De W.), but the partially parallel passages 2 Cor. viil. 14, ix. 12, Phil. ii. 30, seem to suggest the simpler, even if it be the less delicately com- plimentary, ‘ your want of access to me;’ see Hofm. im loc., and comp. Chrys., Theoph. It must not be for- gotten that the three here mentioned were probably bearers of a letter to the Apostle and, in a certain mea- sure, were representatives of the absent Corinthian Church. On the meaning of avamAnpody (to ‘make wp what is lacking ’), see notes on Phil. li. 30. 18. dvérravoav yap x.T.A.] ‘for they refreshed my spirit, and yours ;’ proof of the clause just preceding, ‘they well made up for the tarépnua AVI: 17, 18; ‘To. 341 C. 4 F) , > \ , UL@V, ETUVYLWWOKETE OV TOUS TOLOUTOUS. The Churches of Asia and others salute you, "Aomalovtar vas at exKAnolar 19 THs Acias. aomdlerar tuas év Kupiw moda *Axv- 19. dowd(erai] So Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderat- ing authority, and on internal probability also: Rec., Lachm. (with marg.), Treg. (with marg.), aomd(ovrat. In what follows Mploxa is adopted by Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westcott and Hort, on preponderating authority : Rec., Lachm., MploniAda. on your part; for by their presence they refreshed my spirit—and yours (the cal rd duay being perhaps added with a tinge of emphasizing pause), inasmuch as you were repre- sented by them, and were minister- ing in their persons ;’ Gre dv abtav mapactavres TG MavAw, Chrys. The refreshment these three men gave to the Apostle must, by the nature of the bond of affection between them, have borne refreshment to the Church which was thus repre- sentatively ministering to its founder. For similar uses of dvamavew, see 2 Cor. vii. 13, Philem. 7, 20. émytvdoKerte ody K.7T.A.] ‘ Acknow- ledge ye then such men (as these) ;’ ‘qui hujusmodi sunt,’ Vulg.; the collective otv (see notes on ch. vii. 26) gathering up what has preceded in the form of an appropriate direc- tion, and the rods ro.ovrous (as in ver. 16) giving it a generalized aspect. The Corinthians were to recognize such men,—men who had taken a long journey (Chrys.), and faithfully executed their commission, —and to acknowledge them for their work’s sake. On the meaning of émiywaokew, see notes on ch. xiii. 12, and compare eld¢eva:, 1 Thess. v. 12. The idea of paying honour and reverence (Est.) is not expressed in the direction, but would certainly be the result of following it. 19, 20. Salutations. 19. ’"Aomdlovrat tyds «.7.A.] ‘ The Churches of Asia salute you.’ The term Asia in the N. T. seems gener- ally to be limited to the Roman Province bearing that name, the area of which, in the time of St Paul, appears to have been confined to Mysia, Lydia, and Caria: see Wieseler, Chronol. Apost. p. 32 8q., Smith, Dict. of Bible, s. v. ‘ Asia,’ Vol. 1. p.124. The term thus, speak- ing roughly, includes the countries on the western coast of Asia Minor, but appy. sometimes with a wider, sometimes with a narrower, applica- tion : see notes on 2 Tim. i. 15. Qomdlerar tpas x.7.A.] * Aquila and Prisca salute you much in the Lord. Aquila was a Jew of Pontus whom, with his wife Priscilla or, as here, Prisca, the Apostle found at Corinth on his arrival there from Athens (Acts xviii. 2). They had fled from Rome owing to the edict of Claudian. At Corinth they were associated with the Apostle in the trade of making tent-cloth, and they subsequently went with him to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18). They are mentioned as having instructed Apollos on his arrival in that city (Acts xviii. 24). They probably left Ephesus with the Apostle, and shortly afterwards went to Rome (Rom. xvi. 3), but apparently re- turned to Ephesus: see 2 Tim. iv. 19, and notes im loc. The greeting of this godly and devoted pair is defined as éy Kupig, ‘in the Lord,’ z. e. ‘in Christ’ (notes on 342 TIPO KOPINOIOY> ITPOTH. Lal > > lal has kat IIpioxa adv TH Kat oikov avtav éxkdyoia. > , c an Ee. 3 ‘ rd 20 domdlovrat twas ot ddehdhol aves. m4 Aordacacbe adAjdovs ev diljpate ayio. 21 ‘O 1 Thess. iii. 12): it was a greeting, given in Christ as its sphere and element, and under the feeling of fellowship in Him and with Him; comp. Rom. xvi. 22, and notes on Eph. iv. 17. On the use of the singular where, as here, the predicate precedes, see Winer, Gr.§ 58. 6. B. Husband and wife are regarded as a unity, though in the next clause spoken of in plurality (uer’ avray) : see exx. from classical writers, in Kiihner, Gr. § 370. 2, especially Xen. Anab. m1. 4. 16. otv TH Kat’ olxov x.7.A.] ‘together with the Church that is in their house. Here, at Ephesus, as after- wards in Rome (Rom. xvi. 5), Aquila and Prisca devoted their house to the use of probably one of the several Christian assemblies which must have come into exist- ence during the rapid growth of the Church in Ephesus (comp. Acts xix. 10, 18, 20, 26). The several assem- blies, or as we might call them, house-churches, made up the local Church. For similar instances, see Col. iv. 15, Philem. 2, and notes im loce.: compare Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 397 (ed. Burton), Nean- der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 151, note (Bohn). 20. domdflovTar tyaGs «x.7.A.] ‘ All the brethren salute you :’ all the individual members of Churches as well as the Churches into which they are grouped. On the position of maytes, and the probable absence of any particular emphasis in the posi- tion, see notes on ch. xv. 7. The order of Vulg., ‘omnes fratres,’ is, however, to be preferred to the un- domacpos TH te Be. My own salutation A xeupt and benediction, . emphatic ‘ fratres omnes,’ of Beza ; the distinction is real, though hard to be expressed without exaggera- tion. év duAnparte aylo]) ‘with a holy kiss ;’ the év marking that i which and by which the salutation was expressed, and pass- ing naturally into its instrumental use; see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18. This dyov piAnua is also specified on Rom. xvi. 16, 2 Cor. xiii. 12} 1 Thess. v. 26 (where see notes and references), and, under the form plrAnua aydrns,in 1 Pet. v.14. In all these passages the ¢iAnua appears as the prescribed manifestation of affection and brotherly love, as ‘symbolum charitatis et dilectionis,’ Suicer. It was, however, not to be merely the ordinary salutation of Oriental life, but a Gyiov pianua, a formal and solemn expression of the 7d GAAHAos ayarav which was the quickening principle of Christian life: comp. 1 John iy. 7 sqq. It thus soon assumed a formal place in the services and offices of the Church,—following prayer, and pre- ceding the communion (Justin M. Apol. 1. 65),—as the ‘signaculum orationis’ (Tertull. de Orat. 18), the ‘osculum pacis’ (ib. 14), and the almost inseparable adjunct to all higher Christian worship. For fur- ther details, see Smith and Cheet- ham, Dict. of Chr. Antiq. Vol. u. p. 902 sq., Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. u. p- 1430; and the reff. in notes on 1 Thess. v. 26. 21-24. Autographic salutation and benediction. wos K.7.A.[ ‘ The salutation with my °O dotrac- AVL. 90,,.21,'22, 23. 345 Tlav\ov. €t Tis od iret Tov Kipuov, rw avdbeua. 22 Mapav add. ) xapis Tov Kvpiov “Incod pel’ 23 22. Kvpiwv) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority : Rec. adds ‘Incoty Xpiordy. 23. ‘Incod] So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort: Rec., Lachm., Rev., *"Incod Xpiorov. few but of great weight. Decision is here difficult, as the omitting authorities are On the whole, as the appearance of the words in different order in two short and contiguous verses seems difficult to be accounted for, the shorter reading is appy. to be preferred. own hand of me Paul:’ final and special salutation, traced by the Apostle’s own hand, and followed by a solemn utterance of the one principle on which all turned, and of the judgment that awaited him who violated it. This salutation and the words that follow it authenticate the Epistle: comp. Col. iv. 18, 2 Thess. lii.17. The rest was written by an amanuensis; comp. Rom. xvi. 22. It is not improbable that Rom. xvi. 25-27 is a similar autographic con- clusion, and it is just possible that Gal. vi. 11-18 may be another exam- ple; but, in this latter case, there seems good reason for thinking that St Paul wrote the whole epistle: see notes on Gal. vi. 11. The gen. TlavAov is an appositional and epexe- getic addition to the éuod involved in the éuj: see exx. of this idio- matic and perfectly intelligible usage in Kiihner, Gr. § 406. 3, Donalds. Gr. § 407. n, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 59. 7. 22. el tis od didci Tov KUptov] ‘If anyone loveth not the Lord,’ ‘has no personal affection for Him;’ the emphasis falling on the nega- tive (see Winer, Gr. § 55. 3. d), and the studiously chosen $:Aé? (contrast Eph. vi. 24) marking the lower form of love which was probably openly expressed by many a Corinthian Christian, but was utterly negatived and reversed by the spirit of party and faction. On the distinction be- tween the more personal g:Aciv and the higher and more reverential ayarav, see Trench, Synon. § 12, Cremer, Worterb. s. v., and on our love to God as being centred in our love to Christ, Rothe, Chr. Ethik, § 982, Vol 1v. p. 163 sq. (ed 2). AT avdbewa] ‘let him be anathe- ma,’—accursed, ‘divine ire sacra- tum;’ comp. Rom. ix. 3, and see notes on Gal. i. 8. There is no ground for taking this declaration in any modified sense in reference to excommunication: it solemnly pronounces that which the Lord at His coming will confirm and ratify. Hence the words that follow. On the less usual and later form Tw (James v. 12), see Winer, Gr. § 14. 2. It is found in some mss. of Plato, Republi. 1. p. 361 Dp, but two good mss. give the usual éorw; see Kiihner, Gr. § 298. 3. Mapay 464] ‘Our Lord is come,’ Syr. ‘ dominus noster venit.’ There is some doubt whether the terminal letter 5 of the transliterated word Mapay is the pro- nominal aflfix,—so making the word equivalent to ‘Our Lord’ (Chrys., ed. Bened.; one ms. omits 7uév), or whether it is the 3 formativum, expressive of dignity and pre- eminence,—so making the word more nearly equivalent to ‘the Lord:’ see Buxtorf, Lez. s. v. 179. The meaning in either case is so 344 TIPO KOPINGIOYS IPOTH. c “ e > / ‘ U c lal > fn 24 vuoV. N ayaTyN pov peETa TAaVTwMY VLwWY EV XpLOT@ "Inoov. 24. ev Xpior@ “Inood] So, without a terminal aujv, Tisch., Treg., Weste. and Hort. The word appears in Rec., [Lachm.], Rev. on external evidence certainly large in amount, yet appy. not preponderant, the probability of insertion being very great, and the cases in St Paul’s Epp. in which the auhy is indisputably an insertion several in number. nearly the same (Gesenius, in his Lew., 8. Vv. S12) renders the Rab- binic }71) by ‘dominus noster ’) that we may retain the rendering of Syr. as most probably that which the Apostle intended to convey to his readers. The NN (Ade, Chrys.) does not refer to the incarnation, but, with the future force of the tense in asseverations and‘ assur- ances (see Gesen. Gramm. § 126. 4), is practically equivalent to the 6 Kupios eyyis of Phil. iv. 5, and points to the quick coming of Him who will ratify the #7w dvd0eua that has just been expressed. Hofmann divides up the papavada so as to imply ‘thou art the Lord,’ but without any sufficient reason for departing from the traditional ren- dering of the words. Why the Aramaic language is here used can- not be explained. The most prob- able supposition would seem to be, that it was a kind of watchword in the early Church, expressive of the hope, and almost conviction, of the Lord’s speedy return: comp. Rev. Xxli. 20, where, as here, the bene- . diction immediately follows. 23. h xdpis «.7.A.] ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you;’ closing blessing, differing from that in Rom. xvi. 20 (the Xptorod, as here, is doubtful), 1 Thess. v. 28, 2 Thess. ili. 18, by the omis- sion of Xpiorov and by the insertion of juav after Kupfov. In Gal. vi. 18, Phil. iv. 13, and Philem. 25, pera Tov mvevuatos is inserted before buoy; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22. The shortest form is in Col. iv. 18, I Tim. vi. 21, ) xdpis ped’ budv: comp. 2) Tim: iy. 22, Tit, iu. 152 see notes on 1 Thess. v. 28, but for pera godin 1 Tim. vi. 21, read ped? buav. 24. * aydan pov xt-A.] ‘My love be with you all;’ second vale- dictory blessing, the optative «i being here understood as in the preceding verse: comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22, where there is a similar twofold parting benediction, but addressed to different persons; see notes in loc. Chrysostom and Theoph. ap- pear to understand éor/, and to take the clause as declaratory and equi- valent to wera mdvrwy tuayv ey; so also De Wette and Meyer. For this change of mood, however, there does not seem any sufficient reason. That the Apostle should close with the prayer that the love he has for them may be with them all, heal all divisions, and dissolve all factions, seems both natural and appropriate. This love is €v Xptore *Inoot,—in Him as its element, and as the sphere of all its true activity. Such a love, as Chrys. well says, ovdev avOpmémvov exer ovde capkikdy, GAAG mvevpatikh tis eotl: id Kal opddpa yvnoia. Spoltiswoode & Co, Printers, New-street Square, London, >Re =. pe . - ca Date Due = EY see ao 4 ee eee an A = We 8 Be rs “. &.: ‘ a . » ~ Xie: = 2 + é ta oJ MM > “ x “s mee, _ . MSbs.< " ah eB re —s ee we ‘ ps 3 | 352 15 £46 the BS out s First epistie to | Sou “ . ; 1 : Y ; S | | ‘ ¢ ui ; | ; ; i : 4 « in "¢ " ' ‘ ‘ ” ' ‘ ‘ ‘ : P } = : if | : ot meeps : Ri sheNige stir - eemeuts te FRAT 94 wp tm i oe hyn, eee moms Nib tit headed) . va omy Mehta ret Gririnee mabever ac sens 1-8 he hong “~ Pore an pegs oo rptitee tat Some f ‘ $548 Uhiveeag, tay aaanst